Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against Passport Fee Hike for NRIs

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Indian government's decision to increase the fee for passport issuance and renewal, specifically rejecting arguments that the hike disproportionately affected economically weak Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

This ruling affirms the government's prerogative in setting policy regarding administrative fees, particularly when those fees are not deemed "unreasonably exorbitant" by the judiciary. For individuals and organisations, it clarifies that judicial intervention in such policy matters is limited, especially when the fee increase is justified by a significant time gap since the last revision. It also underscores the high bar for challenging government policy decisions on grounds of economic hardship in a PIL, reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint in matters of executive policy.

The case involved the exercise of judicial review over executive policy decisions concerning the fees charged for public services like passport issuance. The court's reasoning, delivered by Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, hinged on the principle of judicial restraint, asserting that it is for the government to decide such policies unless they are arbitrary, illegal, or unconstitutional. The bench noted that the last fee increase was in 2012, making a 67% hike after 14 years not unreasonable, thereby considering the historical context and potential inflationary pressures on administrative costs. The challenge was brought as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the *Pravasi Legal Cell*, a mechanism allowing public-spirited entities to seek redress for public grievances.

Key parties in this matter included the Delhi High Court, specifically the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, and the petitioner organisation, *Pravasi Legal Cell*. Advocate Neya AS appeared for the petitioner, arguing against the perceived exorbitant increase. The implicit respondent is the Indian government, responsible for setting passport fees through its relevant ministries.

Legal professionals advising NRIs or organisations concerned with government fees should note that challenging such policy decisions requires demonstrating more than just a disparity or perceived economic burden. The threshold for judicial interference is high, requiring robust proof that the fees are "unreasonably exorbitant" or that the policy is otherwise arbitrary, discriminatory, or unconstitutional, rather than merely arguing against a policy choice. Future challenges would need to present compelling evidence of a clear violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions to succeed.