The Supreme Court today agreed to examine constitutional validity of a provision of the passport law and a notification that provides for issuance of passport for a year only to an accused on receipt of a 'no objection certificate' (NOC) from a court.
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and A M Sapre issued notice to the Centre and Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad on the plea of lawyer Prashant Bhushan who gets passport for a period of only one year on account of some FIRs lodged against him for allegedly taking part in protests and 'dharna'.
"Petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 which states that passport shall not be issued/reissued to a person accused of committing any offence.
"The blanket prohibition in Section 6(2)(f) has been partially lifted vide a notification issued in 1993 which states that passport may be issued/reissued if the applicant produces an NOC from the court concerned and if no period is mentioned in the NOC, then the passport shall be issued/ reissued for only one year. The petitioner had also challenged the constitutional validity of this notification," the plea said.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for his lawyer brother, said the concerned provision does not make distinction between serious and not so serious offences and puts equal restriction on accused in getting new or renewed passport and it is violative of right to equality.
"Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is in violation of Article 14 as it fails to distinguish between a person who is accused of having committed a serious crime and a person who is accused of a minor offence.
"By imposing the same restriction for all those against whom a criminal case may be pending before any court, Section 6(2)(f) treats unequals as equals and thereby violates the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the petition said.
Bhushan has filed an appeal against the Delhi High Court order that had rejected his plea against the provisions of the Passport Act.
The appeal also said that in not granting Bhushan "a full
validity passport of 10 years, the respondents (Centre and others) have acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
The issuance of a passport for only one year is "arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable", it said.
Bhushan also said that he, being a founding member of India Against Corruption, had taken part in a protest in Delhi against the coal scam on August 26, 2012.
Though the protest was "non-violent" and "within his right to freedom of speech and expression", a few cases were lodged against him by police for alleged violation of certain prohibitory orders.
Later, the authority has been re-issuing his passport for one year only on production of NOC from the concerned court, he said, adding that the authorities be asked to reissue his passport with full validity of 10 years.
