A visual of the exterior of the Karnataka High Court.
Credit: iStock Photo
Bengaluru: There is no difference between renewal, re-issuance or first issuance of the passport under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, the High Court of Karnataka has ruled.
Rejecting a petition, which contended that the pendency of criminal cases should not come in the way of re-issuance or renewal of the passport, Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that every issuance, re-issuance or renewal would have to meet the requirements or pass through the rigours of Section 6.
Employed at a private firm, the petitioner, Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa, was first issued a passport on April 11, 2014, which is valid up to April 10, 2024. He also possesses a Schengen visa, but is not permitted to travel abroad as its validity comes down to less than six months.
On September 20, 2023, the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru, declined his request for issuance of a normal validity passport for 10 years, citing that there is a pending criminal case (murder case) against him. In fact, his father and wife are also arraigned as accused in that case.
The petitioner contended that the pendency of a criminal case cannot come in the way of the re-issuance of the passport to a citizen. It was further argued that travel or otherwise is a different circumstance and merely because a criminal case is pending, the passport of the petitioner could not have been denied to be re-issued.
The petitioner also submitted that he was permitted to travel by the sessions court intermittently for his work.
On the other hand, the Ministry of External Affairs insisted that passports cannot be reissued in terms of Section 6(2)(f) and also the notification issued by the ministry on August 25, 1993, as long as the criminal case is pending against the petitioner.
After going through various judgments, the provisions under the act and the rules, Justice Nagaprasanna said that Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570 notification make a person ineligible for issuance of the passport. The court said that the rules cannot be rendered flexible to such circumstances by a stroke of pen.
"As long as Section 6(2)(f) stares at any application, be it for fresh, renewal or re-issuance, such an application cannot be directed to be granted, diluting the rigour of Section 6(2)(f). The applicant is under a cloud, 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,” the court said.
However, the court said that the petitioner can approach the court concerned, seeking issuance of a short-validity passport and the court concerned should consider such application strictly in consonance with the Passport Act, GSR-570 and its requirements.