NRI’s plea for 10-year validity in new passport dismissed: Telangana HC cites criminal proceedings

The petitioner, Mohammed Fahad Yaseen, an Indian citizen employed in Dubai, sought renewal of passport till November 2, 2031, on the basis of the validity of his original passport damaged by water. He applied for a re-issuance on September 25, 2025.

However, the passport authority issued an objection after a police report revealed he was an accused in a case before the sessions court. The charges against him include offences under sections 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed to similar circumstances in a previous writ petition where the court renewed the passport of the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions, and sought similar orders to be passed in the present case as well.

Objecting to the petitioner’s contentions, the Union of India maintained that under Passport Rules, an applicant involved in a criminal case must produce a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the concerned court. Without a specified duration in such an NOC, rules dictate a renewal period of only one year.

During the proceedings, the court observed that the petitioner had provided no evidence of seeking an NOC or permission to travel from the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The court further noted that it has consistently limited renewals to one year in such circumstances. Highlighting the lack of justification for a departure from this rule, the judge stated: “This court does not find any plausible grounds justifying renewal for an extended period by deviating from the consistent direction to renew the passport for one year in cases where criminal proceedings are pending.”

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the passport authority to renew the document for a period of one year. To facilitate his return to work in Dubai, the court directed the petitioner to file an application before the trial court seeking permission to travel abroad.

The judge clarified that the trial court must consider the application and impose suitable conditions. The court concluded by warning that “if there is any violation on the part of the petitioner… the trial court shall take appropriate measures to secure the presence of the petitioner, as per law”.