The Gujarat High Court has held that passport authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide whether an accused can travel abroad. This decision lies solely with the concerned trial court, which can impose necessary conditions when granting such permissions.
The judgment came in response to a plea by Harsh Mahesh Tanna, who challenged the renewal of his passport for just one year despite trial court orders. Tanna, booked under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gujarat Gambling Act, argued that this limitation violated his fundamental rights and was arbitrary and discriminatory under the Passport Act, 1967.
Read Also:- Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 33-Week Pregnancy of 13-Year-Old Rape Survivor
The petitioner’s passport had expired in 2023 while his trial, ongoing since 2019, was still pending. Although he had received permission from the trial court to renew his passport, it was only renewed for a single year. This, he argued, severely impacted his business, which involves travel to neighboring countries for work related to his car studio.
Referring to the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner’s counsel stated that if the court order does not specify the validity period, the passport authority can only issue it for one year. However, he stressed that when a trial court directs renewal "as per rules," the passport must be renewed for the standard 10-year duration under the Passport Rules, 1980.
Read Also:- Gujarat High Court Imposes 20 Lakh Cost on PIL Litigant Involved in Blackmailing Scandal
“This Court is of the considered opinion that the passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad. Such authority is only vested in the Trial Court,” stated Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee.
Justice Mayee referred to the Bombay High Court's 2014 judgment in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India, which clarified similar issues. The Bombay High Court had issued guidelines asserting that where courts direct passport renewal as per the rules, the authorities must grant a full 10-year validity, unless otherwise specified.
“In such cases, the directions of the Magistrate should be binding, and passports must be renewed for at least 10 years, unless the court itself restricts the period,” the Bombay High Court had earlier held.
Read Also:- Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to Doctor Accused of Misusing PMJAY Scheme for Forced Angioplasties
In this case, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand, had twice—on 18.08.2023 and 20.11.2024—directed the passport authority to renew Tanna’s passport as per applicable rules. However, the authority renewed it only for one year, citing lack of a specified period in the court’s order.
The Gujarat High Court emphasized that the GSR Notification allows for one-year renewal only if the court fails to mention a period, but it does not override the authority of the court to allow longer renewals.
“The directions issued by the Bombay High Court are binding upon the passport authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years as per the Act and the Rules,” noted the Gujarat High Court.
Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and directed the passport authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport for 10 years. It clarified that any travel abroad would still require prior permission from the trial court, which can impose appropriate conditions.
Case Title: Harsh Mahesh Tanna vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: SCA No. 3289 of 2025
