The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL against the passport fee hike for overseas Indians, holding that a 67% increase after 14 years is not unreasonable and that fee fixation is a matter of government policy.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation by the Pravasi Legal Cell challenging the revised passport fees payable by Indians living abroad, declining to interfere with a hike that the petitioner put at about 67% and that the Centre said came after a 14-year gap [Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma heard the matter. The Bench observed that decisions on government fees call for judicial restraint, and found no statutory provision or constitutional right that required the relief sought.
How the case reached here
The Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2026, which took effect on July 1, 2026, raised passport fees sharply. The Pravasi Legal Cell first approached the High Court arguing that the hike was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and that it burdened non-resident Indians, migrant workers and economically weaker sections. It said the government had released no cost analysis or financial justification.
On July 22, 2026, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyaya, with Justice Tejas Karia, disposed of that petition without ruling on the validity of the Rules. It directed the Ministry of External Affairs to decide the petitioner’s representation of June 27, 2026 expeditiously, preferably within three months. The present PIL followed, after the Centre’s Office Memorandum of August 10, 2026.
What the petitioner argued
The petitioner contended that Indian workers in Gulf countries, especially those from weaker economic sections such as mechanics, plumbers and construction workers, pay far more for passports than residents in India. It put the fee for overseas Indians at about Rs 11,900 against about Rs 2,500 for residents, and said the fee had risen from roughly Rs 7,000. It argued that the Office Memorandum did not address this disparity, and relied mainly on equitable grounds and Article 14.
The Centre’s stand and the Court’s view
The Centre said the last revision was in 2012 and that fixing passport fees is a policy matter. The Bench asked what rights, apart from Article 14, were being invoked. It doubted whether a separate concessional fee could be created, and asked how the economic status of such workers would be certified and whether a certificate from another country could bind the Indian government. Assessing the financial condition of overseas Indians, it held, falls within the government’s domain.
Acting Chief Justice Sambre remarked orally:
After 14 years, it’s a reasonable increase…we’re not inclined to show any indulgence
The outcome
The Court held that the 67% hike cannot be considered unreasonable or exorbitant and dismissed the PIL, recording no further directions. The written order was not available at the time of writing, so the case number and date of the order are not stated here.
Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, Delhi High Court