IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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