Changing the law interpreted in its three earlier judgments, in which it was held that pendency of a criminal case would not come in the way of renewal or re-issue of regular passport that was already issued, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday said when the law bars issuance of regular passport during pendency of a criminal case, the same yardstick is applicable even for its renewal or re-issuance.
The court has changed its views after noticing that the interpretation of law made in a case between Ashok Khanna vs. CBI by the Delhi High Court, on which the court’s three earlier judgments were based, was restricted by the Supreme Court only for application in the Ashok Khanna’s case in the Delhi High Court while leaving open the question of law.
“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...,” said Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order.
The court changed its earlier views while upholding the passport authority’s action of putting on hold an application, by Santosh B.S of Tumakuru, for the re-issue of his existing regular passport, valid till April 10, 2024, on the reason that he cannot get a visa on this passport as its validity is less than a year.
The passport authority had put on hold the re-issue of passport as the petitioner, a senior management-level employee in a private company, is facing a criminal case for alleged murder.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that refusal to re-issue the passport for another 10 years was contrary to the three judgments passed by the court in similar 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 due to pending criminal case before courts in India, Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Giving an illustration, the court has said that an applicant may not be facing any criminal case at the time of first instance of issuance of passport but may get embroiled in a crime later and face a criminal proceeding, and these aspects cannot be ignored at 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 said while observing that the applicant, in the present 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.”
However, the court made it clear that the petitioner is entitled for a short-period passport as provided in law and can travel abroad with the prior permission of the trial court, which had already permitted him to travel abroad on a couple of occasions earlier.
