India News | Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Against Passport Fee Hike, Says 67% Increase in 14 Years Not Unreasonable
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma said the determination of passport fees falls within the government’s policy domain and that judicial intervention is unwarranted unless the charges are found to be unreasonably exorbitant.
New Delhi [India], October 28 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Centre’s decision to increase passport issuance and renewal fees, observing that a hike of around 67% over 14 years could not be considered unreasonable.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma said the determination of passport fees falls within the government’s policy domain and that judicial intervention is unwarranted unless the charges are found to be unreasonably exorbitant.
Also Read | Bank Holiday on Karwa Chauth: Are Banks Closed Across India on October 29? Check Details.
“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 observed.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Pravasi Legal Cell challenging the revised passport fee structure introduced under the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2026, which came into effect on July 1.
Also Read | CM Mohan Yadav Inspects Boma Blackbuck Rescue Operation.
The petitioner had questioned the disparity between the charges applicable to Indians residing abroad and those payable by applicants in India, contending that the revised fees placed a disproportionate financial burden on Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and migrant workers.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Neya AS argued that passport renewal charges for some Indians living overseas had risen to nearly ₹12,000, approximately ₹5,000 more than the amount payable by applicants residing in India.
The counsel submitted that the enhanced fees would particularly affect low-income Indian workers in Gulf countries, many of whom earn modest salaries and depend on overseas employment to sustain their families back home.
The petitioner also suggested that the government consider a concession mechanism for economically weaker Indians living abroad to ensure that the increased charges do not make essential passport services financially inaccessible.
The bench, however, questioned how the economic vulnerability of an Indian citizen residing overseas would be determined and who would be responsible for certifying such eligibility.
It further indicated that the issue involved a policy decision and that the court could not direct the government to introduce a particular mechanism in the absence of an established statutory or constitutional right requiring such intervention.
Taking note of the fact that passport fees had last been increased in 2012, the bench observed that an increase of approximately 67% over the intervening 14-year period did not, by itself, render the revised charges unreasonable.
The court accordingly declined to interfere with the government’s decision and dismissed the petition.
In the petition, 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 organisation had alleged that the revised fee structure imposed a disproportionate burden on overseas Indians, particularly blue-collar workers, who require valid passports to retain employment, renew work permits and maintain lawful residence abroad.
It had also questioned the ministry’s response to its earlier representations seeking reconsideration of the fee revision, alleging that the authorities had failed to adequately address the specific concerns raised over the financial impact on migrant workers.
The petitioner had sought the quashing of the revised fee structure insofar as it applied to overseas Indian citizens or, alternatively, a direction to the authorities to reconsider its representations and issue a fresh, reasoned decision.
Advocates Neya AS, Anto Robert G, Basil Jaison and Daniel George appeared for the petitioner. (ANI)
(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)