Passport Fee Hike: Delhi HC Rejects Plea, Calls 67% Increase Over 14 Years 'Reasonable'
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea against the passport fee hike, ruling that a 67% increase over 14 years is not unreasonable.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the Central Government's decision to increase the fees for the issuance and renewal of passports. The court observed that a price hike of approximately 67% over a span of 14 years cannot be viewed as unreasonable.
Policy Domain and Judicial Restraint
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma clarified that the determination of passport fees is a matter of government policy. The court emphasized that judicial intervention is not warranted in such matters unless the charges are found to be "unreasonably exorbitant."
"As long as such fees, which are levied towards the renewal of a passport or for processing of a passport, are not found to be unreasonably exorbitant, the Court is not required to interfere with such policies," the bench noted.
The Core of the Dispute
The PIL was filed by the Pravasi Legal Cell, which challenged the revised fee structure introduced under the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2026, effective from July 1. The petition specifically targeted the disparity between the fees charged to Indian citizens residing within the country and those living abroad.
Impact on NRIs and Migrant Workers
Advocate Neya AS, representing the petitioner, argued that the revised costs place a disproportionate financial burden on Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and migrant workers. The key arguments presented included:
- Price Gap: Passport renewal charges for some Indians overseas have risen to nearly ₹12,000, which is roughly ₹5,000 more than what applicants in India pay.
- Vulnerable Groups: The counsel highlighted that low-income Indian workers in Gulf countries, who earn modest salaries to support families back home, would be hardest hit.
- Demand for Concessions: The petitioner urged the government to create a concession mechanism for economically weaker Indians living abroad to ensure essential services remain accessible.
Court's Reasoning for Dismissal
The bench expressed skepticism regarding the implementation of a concession system, questioning how the economic vulnerability of a citizen living overseas would be determined and who would be tasked with certifying such eligibility.
The court further stated that it could not direct the government to introduce a specific mechanism because the issue is a policy decision, and there is no established statutory or constitutional right that necessitates such an intervention.
The Timeline of Fee Increases
A crucial point in the court's decision was the timeline of the revisions. The bench noted that passport fees had last been increased in 2012. Given that the current hike represents a 67% increase over a 14-year period, the court concluded that the revised charges were not unreasonable.
Legal Challenges and Demands
The Pravasi Legal Cell had challenged both the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2026 (notified on June 25) and an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on August 10. The organization argued that blue-collar workers are particularly affected, as a valid passport is mandatory for renewing work permits and maintaining lawful residence abroad.
The petitioner had previously submitted representations to the ministry seeking a reconsideration of the fees, alleging that the authorities failed to adequately address the financial impact on migrant workers. The PIL sought to either quash the revised fee structure for overseas citizens or compel the authorities to issue a fresh, reasoned decision on their representations.
Advocates Neya AS, Anto Robert G, Basil Jaison, and Daniel George appeared on behalf of the petitioner.