Police must ensure that verification for passport is done within 4 weeks: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently stressed that the authorities, particularly the police, must ensure that the verification required for issuance of passports is completed within a month [Rahimuddin Vs. Union Of India And Another].

Taking note of the timeline - 30 working days for new issue and 7 working days for re-issue, excluding the police verification period -  mentioned in the ‘Citizen’s Charter June 2025’, published by the Ministry of External Affairs, the Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi said,

“This demonstrates that the time required in police verification is not stipulated while making guidelines or expected time-line for passport application process. In the light of the constitutional mandate discussed above, this Court expects that the authorities concerned, particularly the police department, shall ensure that all verification files pertaining to passport applications are processed with due diligence and completed within the stipulated time-frame prescribed by the Ministry of External Affairs.”

The Court emphasised that any delay in such administrative functions should be strictly avoided unless justified by exceptional circumstances, as it affects the rights of people.

“Delaying in police verification, which is an essential exercise for an accused, is creating hurdle in realization of the right to travel, specially in cases where re-issuance of the passport is for a duration of one year,” it said.

The Court made these observations while taking note of litigants flooding the court with petitions seeking direction to the passport office to dispose of their pending applications for either issuance of a fresh passport or renewal. 

The bench noted that passport seekers do not even wait for a notice from the passport office in the event of any issue regarding grant of passport application, and at times, do not even reply to the notice and instead directly approach this Court for a direction.

The Court went on to explain that the passport applicants should first reply to the notice and then take further action.

Particularly for those whose application for passport remains pending due to pendency of any criminal case, the Court said that they should first apply for necessary no objection/sanction/approval from court concerned or police, as the case may be. 

It stressed that both the passport office and the police must work with necessary expeditions in these cases.

“The passport office should also not linger on their matters as there may be urgency to a passport applicant. So the concerned Regional Passport Officer in all circumstances where passport cannot be issued must inform the applicant regarding it within a month of submission of passport application and as soon as proper no-objection/sanction/approval is obtained and submitted, should dispose of passport application finally within a further period of a month. The police in cases of application submitted for passport must submit its report within four weeks without undue delay,”

The Court passed these directions while dealing with a plea seeking renewal of passport for 10 years. The petitioner had been issued a passport for only one year due to pendency of a criminal case.

Considering the law, the Court ruled that the passport-issuing authority was well within its power to grant a passport having validity of only one year. The petitioner cannot demand a passport or its renewal for ten years as a matter of right, it said.

The bench reiterated that where no specific period is stated in the order of the competent court, the passport may be issued for one year at a time, with subsequent renewals as per law.  

“In the circumstances, in the present case we do not find any justification to issue further direction at this stage to extend period of passport beyond 19.1.2026. However, a person like petitioner can repeatedly apply for renewal of passport soon after its expiry or even before, in accordance with relevant provisions of law as discussed above,” it said.

Advocates Gulabul Hasan, Pradeep Kumar Aditya and Rajesh Kumar Verma appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Agresh Agarwal and Arvind Nath Agarwal represented the respondents.

[Read Judgment]