Gujarat High Court Directs Passport Renewal for NRI Facing Minor Charge, Citing Livelihood Concerns

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a significant ruling underscoring the balance between administrative procedure and an individual's right to livelihood, the Gujarat High Court has directed passport authorities to process the renewal application of an NRI based in Kuwait, despite a pending criminal case against him for a minor traffic offence.

The single-judge bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee emphasized that the nature of the alleged offence and the severe consequences of non-renewal, such as deportation and permanent blacklisting, must be considered. The Court ordered the authorities to process the application within four weeks, taking into account the petitioner's explanation and undertaking to cooperate with the trial.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mohasin Sabbir Ahmed Surati, a resident of Kuwait, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 25, 2025, from the passport authorities. The order had put his passport renewal on hold, citing the suppression of a pending FIR registered against him under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) for rash and negligent driving. The complainant in the FIR was a Police Head Constable.

Mr. Surati claimed he was unaware of the FIR and had since provided a written explanation to the Embassy of India in Kuwait on September 7, 2025.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Submissions: The petitioner's counsel argued that his client's livelihood was at stake. Without a valid passport, he faced forceful deportation and permanent blacklisting from Kuwait. It was submitted that the petitioner was willing to fully cooperate with the Indian trial court for an expeditious disposal of the criminal case and had already provided a suitable explanation to the authorities.

Respondent's Submissions: Representing the Union of India, counsel Mr. Pradeep Bhate contended that the passport authorities had acted validly by raising an objection, as a criminal case was undeniably pending against the applicant. However, he submitted that the court could pass appropriate directions in the matter.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Mayee, after hearing both parties, focused on the specific circumstances of the case. The Court noted the relatively minor nature of the offence—rash and negligent driving—and the petitioner's assertion of being unaware of the FIR.

The judgment highlighted the severe repercussions the petitioner would face if his passport was not renewed. The Court observed:

> "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the nature of offence as mentioned in the F.I.R., this Court is inclined to direct the respondent No.2 to process the Passport Application... The present order is also passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is working in Kuwait and would have to face serious consequences if the renewal of the passport is not considered."

The Court took into account the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the criminal proceedings and the written explanation already submitted to the embassy.

Final Decision and Implications

Disposing of the Special Civil Application, the High Court directed the passport authorities (Respondent No. 2) to process Mr. Surati's application within four weeks, deciding it on its merits and in accordance with the law.

This order serves as a crucial precedent, indicating that the mere pendency of a criminal case, especially for a non-serious offence, cannot be an absolute bar to passport renewal. The ruling empowers courts to exercise discretion by weighing the gravity of the alleged crime against the fundamental rights and livelihood of the applicant, particularly when they are living abroad.