Allahabad HC Mandates 4-Week Deadline for Police Verification to Uphold Right to Travel

LUCKNOW – In a significant move to streamline the passport issuance process and curb administrative bottlenecks, the Allahabad High Court has issued a series of directives, chief among them a mandatory four-week timeline for the police to complete and submit verification reports for all passport applications. The ruling aims to tackle systemic delays that the court identified as a significant "hurdle in the realization of the right to travel."

A division bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi delivered the comprehensive 17-page order while disposing of a writ petition concerning the renewal of a passport for an individual with a pending criminal case. The judgment addresses the frequent litigation stemming from passport delays and establishes a clear procedural framework for applicants, the police, and the passport authorities.

The court noted with concern that it is being "flooded" with petitions seeking directions for the disposal of pending passport applications, often filed prematurely by applicants who have not exhausted the proper administrative channels.

The Core Issue: Unchecked Delays in Police Verification

At the heart of the court's decision is the recognition that the police verification stage has become a major point of delay. The bench referred to the Citizen's Charter (June 2025) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which sets an expected timeline of 30 working days for a new ordinary passport and seven working days for reissuance. Crucially, the court highlighted that these timelines exclude the period taken for police verification.

This exclusion, the bench observed, effectively means that the MEA's own charter does not stipulate a binding time limit for the police verification stage, creating an open-ended process prone to indefinite delays. The court found this lacuna to be a primary cause of grievance for applicants, particularly for those with pending criminal cases who often seek passport reissuance for a limited period of one year.

To rectify this, the court issued a firm directive: "The police department shall ensure that all verification files pertaining to passport applications are processed with due diligence and completed within four weeks without undue delay (as per the time-frame prescribed by the Ministry of External Affairs)."

The bench emphasized the gravity of such administrative lapses, stating, "Any delay in such administrative functions should be strictly avoided unless justified by exceptional circumstances. 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 reissuance of the passport is for a duration of one year."

Clarity on Passports for Applicants with Pending Criminal Cases

The High Court also provided crucial clarification on the protocol for individuals with pending criminal cases. It upheld the passport authority's discretion to issue a passport with a one-year validity if the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned criminal court does not specify a longer duration.

This was a central issue in the case of the petitioner, Rahimuddin, who had been granted an NOC by a Chief Judicial Magistrate's court. The Regional Passport Office subsequently issued him a passport valid for one year, from January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2026. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that once an NOC is granted, the standard ten-year validity under the Passport Act, 1967, should apply.

The passport authority defended its decision by citing a Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Notification dated August 25, 1993, which provides for this one-year restriction. The High Court sided with the authority, ruling that "if a competent criminal court grants a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or permission to travel abroad without specifying the duration for which the passport may be issued, the passport authority is justified in granting a passport valid for only one year."

This ruling provides a clear precedent for legal practitioners advising clients in similar situations. It underscores the importance of seeking a specific duration in the NOC application itself if a longer passport validity is desired.

A Procedural Roadmap to Stem Premature Litigation

Observing a trend of applicants rushing to the court without following due process, the bench laid out a clear, sequential path for applicants and authorities to follow. The court expressed its disapproval of the practice where "passport seekers even do not wait for a notice from the passport office... at times they even do not give reply to the notice and directly approach this Court for a direction."

To streamline the process and reduce unnecessary litigation, the court issued the following key directives:

• Applicant's First Step: If an application is delayed, applicants must first respond to any notice issued by the passport office before approaching the court.
• Procedure for Criminal Cases: Applicants with pending criminal cases must first secure the necessary NOC, sanction, or approval from the relevant court or police authority before escalating the matter.
• Timeline for Passport Office: The Regional Passport Officer must not let applications languish. If a passport cannot be issued for any reason, the applicant must be informed within one month of the application's submission.
• Post-NOC Processing: Once a valid NOC is submitted, the passport officer must make a final decision on the application within a further period of one month.
• Mandatory Police Verification Timeline: The police must submit their verification report within four weeks of receiving the application.

Implications for the Legal Community and Applicants

This judgment from the Allahabad High Court serves as both a procedural guide and a strong reminder of the balance between administrative requirements and fundamental rights.

For criminal law practitioners, the decision clarifies the legal standing of the 1993 MEA notification and reinforces the strategy of requesting a specific passport duration in NOC applications. For constitutional and administrative lawyers, the four-week deadline for police verification provides a concrete and enforceable timeline, creating a new basis for challenging undue delays.

Ultimately, the court's directives aim to instill efficiency and accountability in a process that is fundamental to a citizen's right to travel abroad. By setting clear timelines and responsibilities, the judgment seeks to ensure that administrative procedures facilitate, rather than obstruct, the exercise of this right.