The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently rendered a significant ruling pertaining to the issuance of passports for individuals with prior convictions. In a batch of five pleas filed by convicts who were denied passport issuance or renewal despite five years having elapsed since their conviction due to pending appeals, the High Court held that the provisions of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967, would not apply to individuals convicted for not less than two years, provided five years have passed since the date of conviction.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, presiding over the case, emphasized that the Indian legal system's lengthy trial process often delays the conclusion of cases, leading to prolonged hardships for convicts. Considering the time elapsed since the conviction, the likelihood of the applicants absconding or evading justice becomes significantly low, justifying the issuance of passports.
According to Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act, the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport if the applicant has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years within five years preceding the date of application. However, the Court clarified that for this clause to be invoked, three prerequisites must be met: the conviction should be within five years of the application date, the offence must involve moral turpitude, and the sentence should be not less than two years.
In the case at hand, the Court found that authorities had been considering the period of conviction and the time spent after the conviction, but they had not examined whether the offence involved moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that this aspect must be considered, along with other issues, while deciding passport applications.
Moreover, the Court referred to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Nilesh Heda v. UOI and others, which clarified that a High Court cannot be termed a 'criminal court' under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Hence, Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked when an appeal is pending before the High Court.
The Court further analyzed the scope and applicability of clauses (e) and (f) of Section 6(2) and concluded that they differ substantially. Therefore, the notifications issued in 1993 and 2019 do not apply to pending appeals.
To streamline the process and minimize litigation related to passport issues, the Court directed all passport authorities within its jurisdiction to consider its observations and findings while processing both pending and subsequent passport applications.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
