Latest news with #RaghavendraBagal

First Post

Supreme Court to examine uniform pricing for Consular Passport and Visa services

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition challenging the Union government's uniform pricing policy for Consular Passport and Visa (CPV) services that the petitioner says hikes fees up to 1,617% in some cases. read more The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea challenging the central government's uniform pricing policy for Consular Passport and Visa (CPV) services, a move that could impact millions of Indian nationals residing abroad. The petition, filed by Raghavendra Bagal, an Indian citizen living in Oman, contests the government's revised Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in February 2025, which mandates a uniform fee for CPV services regardless of whether applicants opt for additional Value Added Services (VAS). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Nongmeekapam Kotiswar Singh took note of the petitioner's grievance that the uniform fee structure forces all applicants to pay for VAS even if they do not avail themselves of such services. The bench remarked, 'The grievance is that whatever service the individual avails, a uniform fee is fixed irrespective of the nature of the service.' This policy, the petitioner argues, results in an arbitrary price hike — up to 1,617 per cent in some cases — and creates cross-subsidies benefiting third-party vendors appointed to provide these services. The controversy stems from a shift in the 2025 RFP compared to the original 2014 framework. Earlier, third-party vendors charged separately for VAS, which applicants could choose at their discretion. The new policy, however, requires vendors to quote a single all-inclusive cost, effectively bundling VAS charges with basic consular services, irrespective of actual usage. The petitioner had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his plea, citing lack of jurisdiction. The high court had pointed out that only certain RFP conditions were challenged, while other bidders had filed separate petitions on related issues. The petitioner, represented by advocate Dheeraj Malhotra, then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Delhi High Court erred by conflating the petitioner's case with unrelated vendor petitions and thereby wrongly denied the petitioner his right to be heard. The counsel emphasised that as an Indian passport holder residing abroad, the petitioner is directly affected by the pricing policy and thus has locus standi to challenge it. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Supreme Court has now issued notice to the central government, posting the matter for hearing on July 25.