Altering the regulation interpreted in its three earlier judgments, wherein it was held that pendency of a legal case wouldn’t are available in the way in which of renewal or re-issue of standard passport that was already issued, the Excessive Courtroom of Karnataka on Monday mentioned when the regulation bars issuance of standard passport throughout pendency of a legal case, the identical yardstick is relevant even for its renewal or re-issuance.
The court docket has modified its views after noticing that the interpretation of regulation made in a case between Ashok Khanna vs. CBI by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom, on which the court docket’s three earlier judgments have been based mostly, was restricted by the Supreme Courtroom just for utility within the Ashok Khanna’s case within the Delhi Excessive Courtroom whereas leaving open the query of regulation.
“In light of the Apex Court [in its 2022 judgment] restricting the findings of the Delhi High Court only to the said respondent [Ashok Khanna], the law declared by the co-ordinate Benches of this court cannot mean that they have become final and would be binding…,” mentioned Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order.
The court docket modified its earlier views whereas upholding the passport authority’s motion of placing on maintain an utility, by Santosh B.S of Tumakuru, for the re-issue of his current common passport, legitimate until April 10, 2024, on the rationale that he can not get a visa on this passport as its validity is lower than a yr.
The passport authority had placed on maintain the re-issue of passport because the petitioner, a senior management-level worker in a non-public firm, is going through a legal case for alleged homicide.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that refusal to re-issue the passport for an additional 10 years was opposite to the three judgments handed by the court docket in comparable circumstances.
“The unmistakable inference that can be drawn is that, there is no difference between renewal, re-issuance or first issuance of the passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act” that empowers authorities to refuse issuance of passport on account of pending legal case earlier than courts in India, Justice Nagaprasanna noticed.
Giving an illustration, the court docket has mentioned that an applicant will not be going through any legal case on the time of first occasion of issuance of passport however might get embroiled in against the law later and face a legal continuing, and these elements can’t be ignored on the time of renewal or re-issue of passports.
“As long as Section 6(2)(f) stares at any application, be it for fresh, renewal or re-issuance, such application cannot be directed to be allowed diluting the rigour of Section 6(2)(f),” Justice Nagaprasanna mentioned whereas observing that the applicant, within the current case, “is under a cloud and if an applicant of the kind in the case at hand, wants to walk over the clouds; the cloud over such applicant must walk away.”
Nonetheless, the court docket made it clear that the petitioner is entitled for a short-period passport as supplied in regulation and may journey overseas with the prior permission of the trial court docket, which had already permitted him to journey overseas on a few events earlier.