Today(on 9th May),Supreme Court adjourns petition on passport law provision and one-year passport issuance for accused with court-issued ‘no objection certificate’ (NOC).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th May), The Supreme Court has adjourned a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the passport law and a notification that allows for the issuance of passports for only one year to an accused individual upon receipt of a ‘no objection certificate’ (NOC) from a court.
The matter was deferred by a bench comprising of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhyan, as it was informed that senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, was not available. The court’s summer vacations are scheduled to commence on May 20, and it will resume its sitting on July 8.
The petitioner in question is lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who has been receiving passports valid for only one year due to FIRs lodged against him for allegedly participating in protests and ‘dharnas’. Bhushan had previously filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s January 2016 verdict, which had rejected his plea against the provision of the Passport Act.
In the petition, it is stated-
“The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which prohibits issuing or reissuing passports to individuals accused of any offense. The plea notes that this prohibition was partially lifted in a 1993 notification, allowing passports if the applicant presents a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the relevant court. However, if the NOC doesn’t specify a duration, the passport is issued or reissued for only one year. The petitioner also contested the constitutionality of this notification.”
Bhushan’s counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the provision in question fails to distinguish between serious and less serious offenses, and imposes equal restrictions on accused individuals seeking new or renewed passports. This, according to the counsel, is a violation of the right to equality.
The challenge pertains to the constitutionality of both the provision and the notification in question. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act limits the issuance or reissuance of passports to individuals accused of any offense. Conversely, the 1993 notification offers some leeway by permitting passport issuance or reissuance upon presentation of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the relevant court. However, if the NOC fails to specify a duration, the passport validity is restricted to one year.
The petitioner argues that the blanket prohibition and the limited validity period imposed by the passport law and the notification are problematic. It is contended that these measures fail to differentiate between serious criminal offenses and minor infractions, thereby treating all accused individuals equally. This, it is asserted, infringes upon the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision to adjourn the matter until after the summer vacations implies a need for a comprehensive review of the petitioner’s arguments and the constitutional aspects at stake. This delay offers the court an opportunity to meticulously assess the provisions of the Passport Act and the notification, ensuring alignment with principles of equality and fairness.
It is important to note that the outcome of this case could have significant implications for individuals facing criminal charges who seek to travel abroad. The restrictions imposed by the current provisions affect their ability to obtain or renew passports, thereby limiting their freedom of movement and potential opportunities.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Declares Electoral Bond Scheme Unconstitutional: Prashant Bhushan’s Perspective
