The Gujarat High Court bench in the case Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v/s The Regional Passport Officer, the bench comprising of Justice AS Supehia observed and has issued a notice to the Regional Passport Officer at Ahmedabad in light of a petition filled challenging its decision refusing renewal of the applicant passport on account of pendency of criminal contempt proceedings against the applicant.
It was claimed by the Petitioner that the Respondent had invoked Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act to reject renewal of passport because the Petitioner was facing charges of criminal contempt at the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the High Court will examine whether the passport office can deny renewal of passport if the Applicant faces contempt of court charges.
In the present case, while referring to the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the petitioner averred that the said provision and related rules made a ‘mockery of the said basic cannon of law’ and is discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution.
The plea said that the application filled stated that the Petitioner’s passport, valid till February 2020, had expired and was pending renewal. However, a criminal suo moto contempt petition had been pending against the Petitioner, since April 2017. It was alleged that the Bombay High Court has not provided a date of hearing over 4 years and the petitioner had since then made several trips outside of India without any attempt on the petitioner part to flee the country. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for the renewal of passport in October 2019 which was rejected without any official communication. The petitioner’s application was rejected again, while upon re-applying in 2022.
The Petitioner aggrieved with the decision of the Respondent authority, filled the instant petition with the chief contention that the authority had wrongly invoked Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.
Another contention made by the petitioner is that the maximum punishment for criminal contempt is simple imprisonment of six months or with fine up to two thousand rupees or both. However, the Petitioner has been charged with a petty crime. Further, it was also submitted that criminal contempt of court was neither a criminal offence as per IPC nor is it a stand-alone criminal proceeding.
The Petitioner relied on the case Daler Singh v. Union of India to reiterate that a passport could not be refused merely on the ground that an FIR had been registered and reference was also made to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (1) SCC 248, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasised ‘fair play’ as a facet of natural justice and had held that refusal or impounding a passport interferes with basic human rights.
Accordingly, the matter is listed for hearing on August 26.
