After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife Res Ipsa Loquitur Not a Substitute for Proof of Negligence: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Fatal Road Accident Case NSA Detention Doesn’t Bar Framing of Charges If Prima Facie Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Charges in Ajnala Police Station Violence Case Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years Will Duly Proved Even If Witnesses Forget Details After Eight Years: Madras High Court Validates Bequest, Sets Aside Partition Decree Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Commercial Appeal Remedy Exists: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition, Permits Conversion Under Commercial Courts Act Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Cogent, But Caste-Based Offences Demand Specific Intent: Supreme Court Draws Line Between Heinous Crimes and Caste Atrocities Court Must Step into Testator’s Shoes, Not Substitute His Intent: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding One Daughter Production of Arbitration Clause is Enough - Not Conduct Mini-Trials on Capacity or Consortium Structure: Supreme Court Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection Conviction Cannot Rest On Contradictions, Hostility And Conjecture: Supreme Court Acquits Seven Accused In 2010 Village Murder Power to Lower NEET Percentile Lies Only With Centre - States Can’t Dilute NEET by Administrative Letters: Supreme Court Imposed 10 Crore Cost On Private Dental College Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court Connivance Can’t Be Washed Away by Exoneration: P&H High Court Upholds Penalty on Forest Guard Despite Enquiry Clean Chit Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court

25 November 2024 6:38 PM

By: sayum


Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled against the denial of passports based solely on the criminal antecedents of the applicants' family members. Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized the constitutional guarantee of equality and directed the passport authorities to reassess the applications, reiterating that a person's eligibility must hinge on their individual character verification, not the misdeeds of relatives.

"Criminal Background of Husband or Father-in-Law Cannot Reflect on Applicant"

The Court firmly rejected the rationale employed by authorities in denying passports to the petitioners, stating:

"The criminal antecedents of her husband and father-in-law cannot be taken into account to assess her character and her application for issuance of a passport, as the respondents are required to pass the order only on the basis of the petitioner’s character verification, and not that of her husband or father-in-law’s criminal antecedents."

Justice Abhyankar's ruling came in light of an earlier direction in 2021, where the Court had ordered the authorities to reassess a similar application by the petitioner Farzana Bano without factoring in prior adverse reports. However, the authorities once again denied her application, citing the same reasons, which the Court found to be in "cavalier disregard" of its prior order.

Farzana Bano and her son, Mohd Wazib Chhipa, approached the High Court after their passport applications were rejected due to alleged "criminal family backgrounds." Authorities highlighted the involvement of Bano's husband and father-in-law in multiple narcotics and criminal cases under the NDPS Act. However, the petitioners themselves had no criminal cases against them.

Farzana's earlier application had also been rejected on similar grounds, leading her to file W.P. No. 10154/2021. In that case, the Court directed a fresh assessment without considering her family's criminal history. Despite this, the authorities persisted with the same justification in their rejection dated November 17, 2022.

The Court underscored the constitutional protection granted to all citizens, stating:

"The petitioner also enjoys all the fundamental rights as any other citizen of this country."

The judge criticized the passport authorities for their failure to adhere to the 2021 directive and noted:

"It is apparent that the respondents have not cared to comply with the order passed by this Court… and have passed the order in a cavalier manner."

Rejecting the authorities' reasoning, the Court reiterated that the assessment for passport issuance must strictly be based on the applicant's own criminal record, not that of their relatives.

Relief GrantedThe High Court quashed the rejection order of November 17, 2022, directing the authorities to reassess the petitioners' cases within four weeks and issue passports if no individual disqualification exists. The Court further instructed the authorities to complete the entire process within six weeks, ensuring no undue delays.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision serves as a significant affirmation of individual rights, ruling that family associations cannot unjustly curtail a citizen's freedoms. By directing compliance with constitutional principles and prior orders, the judgment safeguards against arbitrary administrative actions and ensures equitable treatment under the law.

Date of Decision: November 7, 2024

Latest Legal News