Prashant Bhushan denied reissuance of passport with full validity on the ground of pendency of criminal case; Delhi High Court issues notice to Ministry of External Affairs

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Union government on a writ petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan challenging the government`s refusal to reissue him a passport with full validity of 10 years on the ground that criminal cases are pending against him.

 

Prashant Bhushan has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the act of the Union Govt in reissuing his passport for a limited period of 1 year instead of reissuing it with a full validity of 10 years

Justice Rajiv Shakdher sought the response of the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, while posting the matter for March 16.

Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for Mr. Prashant Bhushan, contended that merely because a criminal case pertaining to being part of an unlawful assembly is pending against him, the government denied him a passport with full validity.

Bhushan, also a founding member of India Against Corruption (IAC), had staged a protest in August 2012 against the coal scam. Though the protest was non-violent, the police had registered a few cases under section 144 of the CrPC for participating in an assembly which was declared unlawful, against the members of the IAC, including Bhushan. The cases are pending in Patiala House court, the petition said.

Hearing the petition Justice Shakdher remarked: "If someone holds a valid passport but against him some minor traffic violation case is filed, then can you stop subsequent reissue of his passport."

The court also noted that "only if a court impounds the passport or put restrictions on foreign travel, then only passport validity can be restricted".

According to Mr. Bhushan, he had submitted his application for renewal/reissue of the passport to the regional passport office on June 26, 2014 and on the same day, as per procedure, his old passport was cancelled. The government had informed him that in order to get his passport renewed, he needs to first obtain a no objection certificate (NOC) from the concerned court where criminal cases are pending against him.

On September 2, 2014 he moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) at Patiala House Courts here seeking a NOC for the reissue of his passport, which was granted to him. However, the NOC did not specify the duration of validity of the passport.

On September 15, 2014 the government reissued the passport of Mr. Bhushan for a period of only one year instead of the full validity period of 10 years.

The counsel for Mr. Bhushan argued that the one-year restriction on reissuing the passport is "arbitrary, unreasonable and also discriminatory" and thus in violation of article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain appearing for the Centre cited an Aug 25, 1993 notification, saying "Bhushan`s request for re-issue of passport for full validity cannot be acceded to unless the court concerned issues a fresh order in this regard".

The ASG argued that as per the notification a person (having a criminal case pending) who applies for issue or reissue of passport to first obtain a NOC from the court where the case is pending and that if the court does not lay down any time period for renewal, then a passport of only one year validity would be issued.

The High Court then said it would examine the validity of the notification which requires a person with a pending criminal case pending to first obtain a No Objection Certificate from a court

The passport issued to Bhushan from Sep 12, 2014 with a short validity of one year, is due to expire on September 11, 2015.

Centre opposes in Supreme Court plea for appointment of ombudsman to regulate misuse of public money by governments in giving advertisements to gain political mileage; says it would amount to "pre-censorship"

The Union Government on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court the framing of guidelines on regulating its advertisements, saying this did not fall under the ambit of judicial review as an elected dispensation was answerable to Parliament.

The government also advanced the argument as to how the court could decide which of the advertisement has been issued to gain political mileage.

 

File Picture : Mukul Rohatgi

Attorney General of India (AG) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said, "these are matters which should be left to the government and are outside the purview of the courts. The government communicates to the public at large through these advertisements on policy and other matters."

He was opposing to the submissions of Prashant Bhushan, who representing the petitioner had contended that there should be an ombudsman to regulate misuse of public money by the government of the day by giving advertisements to gain political mileage.

"The government expenditure is subject to whole lot of parliamentary procedures and each penny is accounted for and is subject to the audit of the CAG. This is not a case akin to the Visakha case where the courts can step in," Mr. Rohatgi said.

Giving several instances, he said it would amount to "pre-censorship" as it is difficult to judge which of the advertisement is being given to gain political mileage. "Today, we have the swine flu campaign going on across the country. Do we suggest that these advertisements should not contain the pictures of the health minister or health secretary etc. It cannot be said this (advertisement) is given with malafide intention," he said, adding that every government department was entitled by Parliament to spend a particular amount under a particular head.

"The government expenditure is subject to whole lot of parliamentary procedures and each penny is accounted for and is subject to the audit of the CAG. This is not a case akin to the Visakha case where the courts can step in." 

"On what basis, you will decide that it is malafide and is being given to gain political mileage. Ultimately, the government is answerable to Parliament," Mr. Rohatgi asked.

A Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, which reserved its verdict on various pleas on the issue, said it would consider submissions of all parties concerned including the Union Government.