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.

Delhi High Court stays the release of Hindi film “Badmashiyaan”

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday passed an ad-interim order in a suit filed by Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd (MSM), the Indian subsidiary of Sony Entertainment Television, staying the release of Bollywood film “Badmashiyaan”.  Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd (MSM), in its suit, had alleged copyright infringement by the movie’s producers. 

 

"Badmashiyaan' actors at its teaser launch

Justice Indermeet Kaur also restrained the film’s producers from airing trailers of the movie, which according to MSM, is a copy of a Korean film “Couples” as well as its own production “Mango”, that is yet to be released. The court, in its ad-interim ex-parte order, also issued notice to VRG Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd which has produced “Badmashiyaan”, as well as Sidus FNH Corporation, the producer and copyright owner of the Korean film, and sought their replies by 22 May.

MSM has also sought damages of Rs.25 lakh from VRG for infringing its copyright. MSM has contended that the rights to make a Hindi remake of “Couples” was obtained by co-producer Kaleidoscope Entertainment Pvt. Ltd (KEPL) from Sidus FNH in March 2013.

Thereafter, MSM and KEPL “entered into a film production agreement, before commencement of production of the said film, and hence, plaintiff 1 (MSM) is the first owner of copyright in and to the said film,” the petition claimed. MSM and KEPL’s film, Mango, was produced in 2013-14 and its trailers were exhibited in February-March 2014, it said. 

In January 2015, MSM and KEPL had come across trailers of Badmashiyaan on ‘Youtube’ and found that the movie was an adaptation of the Korean movie as well as Mango, the plaintiff alleged. 

“Defendant 1 (VRG), the producer of Badmashiyaan copied the plot, treatment and screenplay of Couples as well as Mango. Accordingly, defendant 1 has infringed the exclusive contractual right of the plaintiffs (MSM and KEPL) to make the adaptation of Couples into Hindi language,” it has alleged. 

“Badmashiyaan”, starring Suzanna Mukherjee, Sharib Hashmi, Siddhant Gupta, Gunjan Malhotra and Karan Mehra, was slated for release on 27 February.

Delhi High Court expresses its concern over rising hate crimes in Delhi against persons from the north-east

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, in the course of hearing a Public Interest Litigation expressed its concern over hate crimes against persons from northeastern states, and sought suggestions from the Centre to put a stop to the menace.  

 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw expressed its concerns over the spurt in hate crimes in the capital after senior advocate Upmanyu Hazarika, appointed by the Court as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) in the PIL filed seeking  a direction to the Government to ensure safety of northeast citizens living in Delhi, informed the Court that the attacks on such persons have not stopped and the Government needs to bring in legal reforms. 

The Bench directing the government to give suggestions on how to deal with the issue of hate crimes, posted the matter for further hearing on April 8.

Delhi High Court finds 'nothing offensive' in "PK"; dismisses PIL seeking a ban on the film

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed against Raj Kumar Hirani directed, Aamir Khan-starrer film PK, saying 'the film was not offensive'. 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw found no merits in the petition which sought a ban on the film for alleged derogatory remarks against Hindu gods, Hindu beliefs, faith and worship in the movie, and consequently proceeded to dismiss it.

A poster of the film 'PK' starring Aamir Khan and Anushka Sharma among others

The Bench asked: "What was wrong in the movie? We don't find anything offensive in it. We don't find any substance in the plea."

The Court, reserving its judgment, said it will pass a detailed order in the petition later.

The Public Interest Litigation, filed by one Gautam, claimed that the film made mockery of Hindu gods and Lord Shiva was shown in bad light.

"The Hindu way of worship has also been criticised in a most unwarranted manner," he alleged.

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain appearing for the Centre opposed the plea, saying similar matter came before the Supreme Court which had rejected it.

Bogus voters in various constituencies in Delhi: Delhi High Court directs Election Commission to file affidavit indicating reason for duplication of Voter ID cards

The Delhi High Court today pulled up the Election Commission over the issue of bogus voters in Delhi, and asked the Commission what action it has taken on the allegation about the presence of a large number of bogus voters in various assembly constituencies of the national capital.

The Court directed the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Delhi to file an affidavit "indicating the cause of error".

"We all are interested in knowing it (about duplication of voter ID card), nothing more than this and nothing less. That's all we want," the Court said, adding that if it is happening, then it is a "matter of great concern".

Delhi High Court

The court made the observations and passed the said order directing the Commission to file an affidavit while hearing a writ petition complaining about the presence of a large number of bogus voters in various assembly constituencies of the national capital.

The Court said there are "discrepancies" in the electoral rolls as shown by the petitioner Naresh Kumar who had unsuccessfully contested on a Congress ticket from Mundka constituency in the 2014 Delhi Assembly polls.

The Court also said the allegation that there are many persons in the city who have numerous voter cards in their name but with different addresses needs to be rectified if they are still existing.

Kumar, represented by senior advocate Rakesh Tiku, has sought a direction from the Court to the Election Commission to delete the name of the bogus voters in different constituencies, including Mundka assembly constituency in Delhi which itself has allegedly over 41,000 such forged card-holders.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the CEC, who appeared after the court issued notice on December 31 last year, informed the Court that the final electoral roll list has been published and all the corrections in regard to the present issue has been done.

Counsel for the CEC also submitted that if the petitioner or any other person has any objection, they can give their representation to the Commission.

The Court, after directing the filing of an affidavit by the Commission, then listed the matter for further hearing on January 13.