Right of an Accused to Secure 10-Year Passport Renewal Pending Criminal Trial: Analyzing the Gujarat High Court’s Recent Ruling
In the realm of white-collar defense and criminal jurisprudence in India, one of the most recurring procedural hurdles faced by an accused - prior to any adjudication of guilt-concerns the curtailment of their right to hold a valid passport and travel abroad. While the judiciary rightly exercises vigilance to ensure that an undertrial does not flee the ends of justice, routine administrative and judicial curtailment of passport validity to short durations (such as one to three years) imposes grave practical hardships. For senior citizens, business professionals, and individuals with immediate family residing overseas, a short-validity passport effectively paralyzes their ability to obtain long-term visas or conduct international affairs, as most foreign consulates mandate a minimum passport validity and look unfavorably upon restricted travel documents.
In a significant victory reinforcing the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, vide its recent judgment dated 30.10.2026 in Mohamediqbal Ganibhai Meghreji v. Union of India & Ors. (R/Special Criminal Application No. 14904 of 2026), set aside the restrictive approach of the Trial Court and directed the renewal of the petitioner’s passport for the full statutory period of ten (10) years. The petitioner in the said proceedings was represented by Advocate Yash J. Patel, J & Y Advocates LLP.
The Statutory Conundrum: Section 6(2)(f) and Notification G.S.R. 570(E)
To appreciate the legal controversy, one must examine the statutory architecture governing the refusal and renewal of passports when criminal proceedings are pending:
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967: This provision mandates that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.
MEA Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993: Issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 22 of the Passports Act, this notification carves out a crucial exception to Section 6(2)(f). It permits citizens against whom criminal proceedings are pending to be issued/re-issued a passport, provided they produce an order from the concerned criminal court permitting them to depart from India.
The Ambiguity Regarding Validity Duration: Under clause (a)(i) of Notification G.S.R. 570(E), if the court order does not specify the period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport is issued for a period of one year. Where the court specifies a period, the passport is issued for the period so specified. Conversely, Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 stipulates that an ordinary passport shall ordinarily remain valid for a period of ten (10) years from the date of its issue.
Historically, Trial Courts across the country—acting with excessive caution—have either remained silent on the duration of renewal in their "No Objection" orders or have arbitrarily restricted the renewal period to one, two, or three years.
Factual Matrix of Mohamediqbal Ganibhai Meghreji v. Union of India
In the instant case before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the petitioner, a 67-year-old businessman whose children are settled abroad, was arrayed as an accused in a pending CBI prosecution (CBI Criminal Case No. 18 of 2024) before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural), for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
With his passport due to expire in May 2027, the petitioner moved an application (CBI Crl. Misc. Application No. 31 of 2026) before the learned CBI Court praying for permission to renew his passport for the standard period of ten years. Vide order dated 29.09.2026, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the application, confining the permission for renewal to a limited period of three (3) years in purported reliance on the MEA Notification dated 25.08.1993.
Aggrieved by the arbitrary curtailment of the renewal period, the petitioner invoked the writ and inherent jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Key Contentions & Judicial Reasoning
During the hearing before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mool Chand Tyagi, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Yash J. Patel argued that once a court sees fit to grant permission for the re-issuance of a passport, restricting its validity to three years serves no legitimate prosecutorial purpose, especially when the right to actually travel abroad remains under the strict supervision of the Trial Court. Reliance was placed upon two pivotal precedents:
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. [2025 INSC 1476]: Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed the re-issuance of an ordinary passport to the appellant-accused for the normal period of ten years, while making actual foreign travel subject to prior court permission.
Harsh Mahesh Tanna v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (R/Special Civil Application No. 3289 of 2025, decided on 17.03.2025): Wherein a Coordinate Bench of the Gujarat High Court, concurring with the settled ratio of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India, clarified that the ambiguity between the Passports Act, the Rules, and Notification G.S.R. 570(E) must be resolved in favor of granting a 10-year renewal, as the Passport Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an accused's right to travel abroad.
1. Rejection of the "Premature Petition" Objection
Interestingly, the Regional Passport Officer (Respondent No. 3) vehemently opposed the petition on a preliminary technical ground, arguing that the writ petition was premature because the petitioner had not yet filed a formal renewal application before the Passport Office.
The Hon’ble High Court squarely rejected this contention. Observing the statutory mechanics of Section 6(2)(f) and Notification G.S.R. 570(E), Justice Tyagi held that an accused facing trial can legitimately approach the Regional Passport Office only after securing the requisite permission from the concerned Court. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the Trial Court’s order limiting that very permission to three years, the cause of action to approach the High Court was complete and ripe.
2. Harmonizing Rule 12 with Judicial Oversight over Foreign Travel
The respondent authorities also cited the Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Rajgopal Chakravarthi Venkateish [2026:DHC:4546-DB]. However, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court noted that even under Paragraph 28 of the said decision, Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 explicitly provides that an ordinary passport issued under Section 7 of the Act shall ordinarily be valid for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issue.
Synthesizing the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in Harsh Mahesh Tanna (supra), the Court held that since a general passport is statutorily renewed for ten years, the learned Trial Court ought to have granted permission for the full ten-year period rather than truncating it to three years.
The Crucial Legal Distinction: Holding a Passport vs. Travelling Abroad
The jurisprudential bedrock of this judgment lies in segregating two distinct legal concepts that are frequently conflated by prosecuting agencies and Trial Courts:
The Administrative Act of Issuing/Renewing a Passport: A passport is first and foremost an essential document of identity and nationality. Under Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, its normal lifespan is ten years. Depriving an undertrial of a full-validity passport subjects them to repeated, costly, and time-consuming litigation every few years merely to keep their identity document alive.
The Judicial Permission to Depart from India: Merely possessing a passport valid for ten years does not grant an accused an unfettered license to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. The authority to regulate the movements of an accused vests exclusively in the Trial Court.
Balancing the fundamental rights of the petitioner with the interests of justice, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court modified the impugned order of the Special CBI Court and permitted the petitioner to get his passport renewed/reissued for a full period of ten (10) years.
Simultaneously, to safeguard the ongoing trial, the High Court directed that the petitioner shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the learned Trial Court, leaving the Trial Court free to impose appropriate conditions whenever an itinerary for foreign travel is presented.
Key Takeaways for Litigants and Legal Practitioners
10-Year Validity is the Norm, Not the Exception: Even where serious offences (including CBI or special statute prosecutions) are pending trial, the normal validity period of 10 years under Rule 12 ought to be granted at the time of passport renewal.
Precision in Trial Court Pleadings: When preferring an application under Notification G.S.R. 570(E) before a Magistrate or Sessions Court, defense counsel must specifically pray for a direction that the passport be renewed for a period of ten (10) years, citing the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1476).
Court Permission Precedes RPO Application: A litigant need not wait for an administrative rejection from the Regional Passport Office before challenging a restrictive Trial Court NOC before the High Court.
Liberty Subject to Trial Court Conditions: While the passport remains valid for a decade, the accused must diligently comply with the condition of seeking prior leave of the Trial Court (or abiding by specific bail/travel conditions) prior to actual departure from India.
CASE: MOHAMEDIQBAL GANIBHAI MEGHREJI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
CASE NO. R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14904 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026:GUJHC:70156
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2026
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: YASH J. PATEL
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational and academic purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice or solicitation.
