The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to respond on its law that deprives persons facing even trivial criminal cases to have an annual validity passport.
Questioning the restriction was noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who became a victim of this law after he was issued a passport with one-year validity due to the two pending cases involving rioting and forming unlawful assembly. The cases were slapped against him for staging a protest against the Government over the coal scam in 2002.
A Bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre issued notice to the Centre and Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad on Bhushan’s plea challenging the validity of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act 1967.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, who appeared for his brother, said the restriction was unconstitutional as it restricted a citizen’s freedom of movement. Even if Bhushan was to get convicted for the trivial offences he faced under various provisions of IPC relating to rioting and forming unlawful assembly. While the matter is kept pending in trial court, Bhushan argued that the Government needs to make distinction between serious and not-so-serious offences.
Even if there is conviction in any of the offences, Bhushan will still be entitled to a 10-year valid passport since the Passport Act only restricts those convicted for an offence of moral turpitude punishable with sentence of beyond two years.
The Delhi High Court had refused to grant relief to Bhushan following which he approached the apex court.