Has a passport office taken your passport, cancelled it, or turned down a reissue without telling you the exact reason in writing? The Passports Act, 1967 does not permit that silence, and the reason they owe you is also the lever that gets the order tested.
Four powers get mixed up in daily speech. Impounding and revocation apply to a passport you already hold, under Section 10. Refusal applies to a passport you asked for, under Sections 5 and 6. Suspension is a separate emergency power in Section 10A. Find your group first.
Group A. Impounded or revoked. Section 10(3) lets the passport authority impound, cause to be impounded, or revoke a passport on these grounds and no others:
Group B. Suspended, not impounded. Section 10A lets the Central Government or a designated officer suspend a passport with immediate effect, or render it invalid, for a period not exceeding four weeks. It applies only where the passport is likely to be impounded or revoked under clause © of Section 10(3) and it is necessary in the public interest. One proviso allows extension by order and for reasons recorded in writing until the Section 10 proceedings end. A second says you shall be given an opportunity of being heard within a period of not later than eight weeks from the date the order was passed.
Group C. Refused. Section 6(2) says the authority shall refuse to issue a passport on these grounds “and on no other ground”. Note that several of them look forward, at what you might do, rather than back at what happened:
Wrongful possession, suppression of material information, contravention of a passport condition and failure to obey a Section 10(1) notice appear only in Section 10(3). They are impounding grounds, not refusal grounds.
| The order against you | Power used | Who may pass it | Written reasons from | Section 11 appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Refusal to issue or endorse | Section 5(2)(b) or © with Section 6 | Passport authority | Section 5(3) | Yes |
| Variation of endorsements or conditions | Section 10(1) | Passport authority | Section 10(5) | Yes |
| Impounding or revocation | Section 10(3) | Passport authority | Section 10(5) | Yes |
| The same, by the superior authority | Section 10(6) | Authority it reports to | Section 10(6) applies the earlier sub-sections | Yes |
| Suspension for a limited period | Section 10A | Central Government or designated officer | Not provided | No |
This is the lever almost nobody pulls, and the Act writes it twice.
For an impounding, revocation or variation, Section 10(5) says the authority “shall record in writing a brief statement of the reasons for making such order and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same”. For a refusal, Section 5(3) says the same in the same words. Read it as two duties, because that is how it gets argued.
So make the demand: in writing, dated, by hand against a stamped acknowledgement or by registered post. Without that copy you are guessing at what to appeal against. Section 11(4) also says the appeal petition shall be accompanied by a copy of the statement of reasons where such copy has been furnished.
What the Supreme Court actually held. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, decided on 25 January 1978 by a seven judge bench, the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi told the petitioner her passport was being impounded under Section 10(3)© “in public interest” and told her to surrender it in seven days. She demanded the Section 10(5) reasons; the Ministry refused a copy, citing the general public interest. The Court upheld Section 10(3)© and Section 10(5) against the constitutional challenge and read fair procedure into the Act, holding that the audi alteram partem rule is not excluded merely because a statute is silent, and should be jettisoned only in very exceptional circumstances. Be accurate about the ending, because most write ups are not: the Court did not quash the order. The Attorney General undertook that the government would deal with her justly and fairly after informing her of any ground for impounding, and in view of that undertaking the Court passed no formal order.
Thirty years later, in Suresh Nanda v CBI, decided on 24 January 2008, the Court put the hearing point plainly. Because impounding a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding it.
Suresh Nanda is the judgment to quote when your passport is sitting in an investigating agency's cupboard. Police may seize a passport under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but do not have the power to impound it. Only the passport authority can, under Section 10(3). A seizure happens at one moment; retaining the document over time amounts to impounding. The Court also held that the Passports Act, being a special Act on passports, prevails over Section 104 of the Code, which lets a court impound documents produced before it, so by necessary implication that power excludes passports.
Paragraph 13 gives you the demand. If police seize a passport they must send it with a letter to the passport authority stating that it deserves to be impounded for one of the Section 10(3) reasons, and that authority then decides, after a hearing. So write to the investigating officer: has my passport been forwarded to the Regional Passport Office, on what date, and has that office passed any order under Section 10(3)? Note that the successor seizure provision is now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, carrying the same words as the old Section 102.
If a pending case is the ground, arguing with the passport office is the slow road. A notification lets you remove the ground instead.
Section 22(a) lets the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of the Act. Using it, the Ministry of External Affairs issued G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, superseding G.S.R. 298(E) of 14 April 1976. It exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings for an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court, and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from clause (f) of Section 6(2), on these conditions:
In Gagan Baderiya v Union of India, decided by the Karnataka High Court on 9 January 2024, the petitioner wanted a full ten year passport despite a pending trial. The Court refused that and sustained the passport office rejection, but sent him to the criminal court for a short validity passport, adding that the court shall not reject such an application merely because a case is pending before it, and that he must state the reason for travel and the intended dates of departure and return.
Worked example. Ritesh Bhandari, 36, a quality inspector in Aurangabad, is an accused in a case pending before a magistrate since 2023. His employer needs him in Vietnam for six weeks. His passport has expired and the passport office issues a show cause notice citing Section 6(2)(f).
He never needed a Section 11 appeal, because he removed the ground instead of arguing about it.
RTI will not reverse an order. It produces the paper you need to attack one, and it is the backstop when your Section 10(5) or Section 5(3) demand is ignored.
Ask the PIO of the Regional Passport Office for the order passed under Section 10(3) or Section 5(2), the brief statement of reasons recorded under Section 10(5) or Section 5(3), the file notings behind it, and the date and despatch number by which the order was sent to you. Ask the PIO of the district Superintendent of Police for the police verification report on your application and the date it went to the passport office. Those are two different public authorities, and Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 makes a wrongly addressed application be transferred, in no case later than five days, with notice to you.
Section 7(1) gives them thirty days, Section 7(2) makes silence a deemed refusal, and Section 7(6) makes the information free if they miss the deadline. If they cite Section 8(1)(a) on security or Section 8(1)(h) on impeding an investigation, Section 10 of the RTI Act still requires them to release what is not exempt, and Section 19(5) puts the burden of justifying the denial on the PIO.
For routing, addresses and fee mechanics, see Passport delay RTI, and for an application body to adapt, the passport office RTI template. Draft and time yours with the AI RTI Drafter and the Timeline Tracker, use the First Appeal Builder if the PIO goes quiet, and check state-wise RTI fees before you pay.
Section 10(3)(e) speaks of proceedings pending before a criminal court in India, not of a police station FIR by itself. Section 10(3)(h) is a separate ground and needs a warrant, a summons, or a court order prohibiting departure. Either way, the decision has to be the passport authority's own order.
In substance yes, and that is the problem. In Suresh Nanda v CBI the Supreme Court held that a seizure happens at one moment but retention over time amounts to impounding, and impounding can be done only by the passport authority under Section 10(3). Police must forward a seized passport to that authority with a letter stating the Section 10(3) ground.
Under Rule 14 of the Passports Rules, 1980, for an order of a passport authority other than the Central Government under Section 5(2)(b) or ©, clause (b) of the proviso to Section 7, or Section 10(1) or 10(3), it is the Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. For a Section 10(6) order by the superior authority it is the Additional Secretary or Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of the order being communicated to you.
It may withhold the copy only where it is of the opinion that giving it would not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations with a foreign country, or the general public. It can never skip recording the reasons in the first place, and a bare assertion of public interest is exactly what the Supreme Court examined closely in Maneka Gandhi.
The judgment did not quash the impounding order. The Court upheld Section 10(3)© and Section 10(5) against the constitutional challenge and read fair procedure into the Act. Because the Attorney General undertook that the government would inform her of the ground and deal with her justly and fairly, the Court passed no formal order.
Apply to the court where the case is pending for permission to depart from India, stating the reason and the intended dates. If permission is granted, G.S.R. 570(E) exempts you from Section 6(2)(f), and the office issues a passport for the period the court specifies or for one year if it specifies none. You must undertake in writing to appear before the court when required.
No appeal lies under Section 11, because Section 10A is not in the list in Section 11(1) and the proviso bars an appeal against an order made by the Central Government. Your remedies are the four week outer limit, the requirement that any extension be by order with reasons recorded in writing, the hearing guaranteed within not later than eight weeks, and a writ petition.
This page explains the law and the procedure. It is not legal advice on your own case. Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak.