Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

 

Similar News