NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Cloud Over Applicant Must Walk Away: Karnataka High Court Upholds Passport Denial in Pending Criminal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has upheld the decision of the Regional Passport Office to deny the re-issuance of a normal validity passport to a petitioner involved in ongoing criminal proceedings. The landmark decision, delivered on December 4, 2023, has profound implications for individuals with pending criminal cases seeking passport services.

The case, titled Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa vs. Union of India & Others, revolved around the petitioner’s request for the re-issuance of his passport, which was denied due to a pending criminal trial. The petitioner, Mr. Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa, challenged this decision, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

In a detailed analysis of the Passports Act, 1967, and related rules and notifications, Justice Nagaprasanna provided a comprehensive interpretation of the legal framework governing passport issuance in India. A key observation made by the court noted, “As long as Section 6(2)(f) stares at any application, be it for fresh, renewal, or re-issuance, such application cannot be directed to be granted, diluting the rigor of Section 6(2)(f).”

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal provisions when considering passport applications against the backdrop of pending criminal proceedings. It was observed that “if an applicant of the kind in the case at hand, wants to walk over the clouds; the cloud over such applicant must walk away.” This statement highlights the necessity for clearing legal hurdles before seeking passport issuance or renewal.

Date of Decision: 04th December 2023

SANTHOSH BEEJADI SRINIVASA VS UNION OF INDIA

Latest Legal News