Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Issuance, Renewal, or Re-Issuance Must Adhere to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act: High Court of Karnataka Upholds Passport Denial in Criminal Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a noteable judgment, the High Court of Karnataka has upheld the decision of the Regional Passport Office to deny the issuance of a normal validity passport to an individual involved in ongoing criminal proceedings. The case, Shri B.R. Swamynathan v. Union of India & Others, became a focal point in interpreting the applicability of the Passports Act, 1967 in such scenarios.

The court meticulously reviewed the Act, especially Sections 2(e), 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 22, concluding that “issuance, renewal, or re-issuance of a passport must adhere to the stipulations of Section 6, particularly sub-section (2)(f).” This section restricts issuing passports to individuals with pending criminal cases, a significant point in the judgment.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, also shed light on the Government of India's GSR 570 Notification. This notification allows for the issuance of short validity passports under specific conditions, including obtaining permission from the concerned court. The judgment states, “This is subject to specific conditions, such as the period of passport validity aligning with the court's order.”

This verdict takes into account various judicial interpretations and precedents, notably the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ashok Khanna v. Central Bureau of Investigation and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Kadar Valli Shaik v. Union of India. The latter aligns with the stringent application of Section 6(2)(f) for renewal cases and was considered authoritative in this judgment.

High Court rejected the petitioner’s request for a regular, 10-year validity passport. Upholding the endorsement by the Regional Passport Office, the court advised the petitioner to seek a short validity passport from the concerned court, in compliance with the Act and GSR 570 Notification. The court clarified that the request for a short validity passport should not be denied solely based on the pending criminal case.

Date of Decision: 17th January, 2024

SHRI. B.R.SWAMYNATHAN  VS THE UNION OF INDIA

 

Latest Legal News