Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

High Court Clarifies Passport Denial in Post-Conviction or Post-Acquittal Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, has clarified the applicability of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, in post-conviction or post-acquittal proceedings. The verdict sheds light on the interpretation and scope of the law, highlighting the impact of constitutional rights on passport issuance decisions.

The court categorically stated, “Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post-conviction or post-acquittal proceedings. As soon as a person is convicted or acquitted, he would be governed by Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act.”

The case arose from several petitions seeking the issuance or renewal of passports after being convicted or acquitted of criminal offenses. The key contention revolved around the interpretation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, which deals with passport issuance to individuals involved in criminal proceedings.

The court extensively discussed the role of the High Court in criminal matters, relying on a previous judgment and stating, “High Court is not a criminal court in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act.”

Furthermore, the court emphasized the significance of constitutional rights in the passport issuance process. It cited, “Denial of passport not only amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 & 21 but also freedom of speech, business, and trade contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution unless and until the procedure prescribed by law is followed.”

The judgment also examined a 1993 notification and 2019 instructions issued by the Central Government to exempt citizens facing criminal proceedings from the operation of Section 6(2)(f). The court clarified that these exemptions were limited to criminal proceedings pending before the trial court and were not applicable to pending appeals.

While delivering the verdict, Justice Jagmohan Bansal highlighted the changing social, scientific, and economic landscape, stating, “With the advancement of technology, improvement of means of communication, globalization of the economy, and an increase in international trade, traveling abroad has substantially increased and become part of life.”

High court directed all passport authorities to consider its observations and findings while processing pending and subsequent applications, aiming to minimize litigation related to passport issues.

Date of Decision:14th July 2023

MOHAN LAL @ MOHNA vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News