Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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