As per case facts, the Petitioner's passport renewal was rejected by the Passport Authority because his court order, which explicitly permitted renewal for ten years, did not use the phrase ... "depart from India." He had previously received a one-year renewal despite a longer request. The question arose whether a court order expressly permitting passport renewal, with implicit travel restrictions, is sufficient under existing Statutes and notifications, or if explicit 'permission to depart' is mandatory for renewal for a specified term. Finally, the Supreme Court, in a definitive Judgment, clarified that individuals facing criminal proceedings are not absolutely disentitled to a passport. If a criminal court allows passport issuance/renewal with an undertaking and conditions (like not traveling abroad without court permission), the Passport Authority must honour the court's order regarding the period. As the court specified ten years, the passport should be renewed for that period.