IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2016
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
(Against the final order and judgment passed by the Division Bench of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 07.01.2016
passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1524 of 2015.)

IN THE MATTER OF:
PrashantBhushan

…Petitioner
VERSUS

Union of Indiaand Anr.            

...Respondents

 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Ms. KAMINI JAISWAL
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present Special Leave Petition is preferred against the impugned
judgment/order dated 07.01.2016 in Writ Petition No.1524 of 2015
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, whereby the Hon’ble
High   Court   dismissed   the   petitioner’s   writ   petition   on   the   ground
thatSection 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act and Notification No. GSR 570(E)
dated   25.08.1993   issued   by   the   Union   of   India  do   not   curtail   the
petitioner’s fundamental rights. 
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.
Why   Section   6(2)(f)   of   the   Passport’s   Act,   1967   is
unconstitutional:
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.
Section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act violates Article 21 rights read with
Article 14 as it fails to make a distinction between a person accused
of bailable and a non­bailable offence. In a case of bailable offence, a

 person against whom any criminal case is pending shall get bail as a
matter of right, however, such a person is still restricted by Section
6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and can get a passport with a validity of
only   one   year.   Similarly,   in   a   case   where   there   is   a   case   pending
against   a   person   for   having   committed   a   non­bailable   offence,   the
court where the person applies for bail has the opportunity to give
bail upon the condition that the person may not travel or may travel
under certain stipulated conditions. The concerned court has all the
right and the opportunity to put conditions of travel upon a person
against   whom   a   criminal   case   in   pending.   But   in   case   where   the
concerned court chooses not to impose any condition, to give power to
the passport authority to deny the passport violates Articles 14 and
21  as interpreted by the landmark  7­judge bench  judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in Maneka Gandhi case ((1978) 1 SCC 248).

The restriction in Section (6)(2)(f) is unconstitutional and in violation
of   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   Article   14   and   21   since   a
person   accused   of   a   crime   is   presumed   to   be   innocent   and
restrictions on his personal liberty can only be imposed the criminal
court   concerned   where   his   case   is   brought   for   trial.   If   the   court
concerned does not choose to impose any restriction on the liberty of
the accused, then the executive cannot deny a passport to a person
merely because some criminal case is pending against him. Therefore
the Section 6(2)(f) violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is
liable to be set­aside.

The restriction in Section (6)(2)(f)is unconstitutional and in violation
of   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   Article   14   and   21since   a
person who holds a valid passport would not face this restriction, but
only a person who does not hold a passport or whose passport needs
renewal will. Thus, a person who has, for instance, 9 years of validity
left in his passport and becomes an accused in a criminal case, would
not face any restriction, but a person who needs to get his passport
reissued   for   some   reason   (as   in   the   case   of   the   petitioner)   will.
Therefore   the   said   restriction   is   arbitrary,   unreasonable   and   also

 discriminatory,   and   thus   in   violation   of   Article   14   and   21   of   the
Constitution.

Why   Notification   No.   GSR   570(E)   dated   25.08.1993   is
unconstitutional
Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Central
Government,   requiring   that   a   person   against   whom   there   is   a
criminal   case   pending   in   any   court   in   India   must   approach   the
concerned court seeking an order permitting him/her to depart from
India,   is   unfair,   arbitrary   and   unreasonable   since   if   the   Court
concerned has not found it fit to impound the passport of an accused
or   has   not   laid   any   restriction   on   his   foreign   travel,   then   merely
because a person’s passport is coming up for renewal or reissue, he
cannot be forced to first seek an NOC from the court only because
some   case   is   pending   against   him.   A   person   who   holds   a   valid
passport would not face this restriction, but only a person who does
not   hold   a   passport   or   whose   passport   requires   a   renewal   will.
Therefore   the   said   restriction   is   arbitrary,   unreasonable   and   also
discriminatory, and thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
This   notification   is   also   arbitrary   since   it   makes   no   distinction
between persons facing charges of committing heinous offences and
those charged with mere presence in an assembly which the police
deems to be unlawful (as in the case of the petitioner).

The  notification  no.   GSR  570(E) dated  25­08­1993  is   arbitrary and
unreasonable since it states  that  even  after a NOC from the Court
concerned is received by an accused, the passport shall be issued or
renewed only for a short period of 1 year. This restriction is arbitrary
and unreasonable since once the Court has given its no objection to
an   accused   travelling   abroad,   there   can   be   no   justification   for
restricting   the   passport   validity   for   1   year.   Only   if   the   Court   itself
states that a limited validity period passport be issued to a particular
accused, then only a limited validity passport may be issued. In all
other cases, full validity passport ought to be issued. Therefore, the

 notification in so far as it states that only 1 year validity passport can
be   issued   is   arbitrary,   unfair,   discriminatory   and   unreasonable.   It
thus falls foul of the equality clause of the Constitution enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi  case since it restricts liberty of an individual in an
arbitrary and unreasonable manner.

In not granting the petitioner a full validity passport of 10 years, the
respondents   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.

Notification No. 570(E) in so far as it states that if the NOC is silent
on   the   duration   for  which   the   passport   may   be   issued,   a   one­year
validity  passport  should   be  issued,  violates  the   petitioner’s   right  to
travel abroad and thereby violates his Right to Life under Article 14 of
the Constitution. 

The   petitioner   submits   that   given   the   visa   restrictions   in   most
countries an applicant for visa is ineligible for visa unless he has at
least 3 to 6 month validity remaining on his passport after his/her
intended   stay.   The   Hon’ble   High   Court   failed   to   appreciate   that
international   guidelines   require   that   an   applicant   must   have
sufficient months remaining before his passport expires for him/her
to be able to make a trip to a country outside of India. Issuing a one
year validity passport virtually creates a situation where a passport
holder keeps applying for a new passport every few months, pay the
requisite fee for application and still remain ineligible to travel outside
of   India   for   the   large   part   of   a   year   because   he/she   is   rendered
ineligible because his passport will soon expire. Such a restriction is,
therefore,   violative   of   the   petitioner’s   fundamental   right   to   travel,
which   this   Hon’ble   Court   in  Maneka   Gandhi  has   held   to   be   a

 fundamental   right   of   a   citizen   under   Artcie   14   and   21   of   the
Constitution.

The action of the Respondents in issuing a passport for only 1 year is
arbitrary,   unfair   and   unreasonable   thereby   violating   his   valuable
fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   Article   14   and   21   of   the
Constitution   of   India.The   aforementioned   impediment   to   travelling
internationally is compounded by the fact that a passport­holder with
a one year validity passport has to apply for the reissue/renewal of
passport   every   year   and   thereby   incur   costs   towards   paying   full
passport   fee   each   time   he/she   applies   for   the   re­issue   of   his/her
passport.

The right to travel abroad is part of the personal liberty as enshrined
in   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   as   held   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a series of judgments. There have been many cases
where   this   Hon’ble   Court   has   declared   the   above   and   it   remains
settled.   In  Satwant   Singh   Sawhney   v.   D.   Ramarathnam,   Assistant
Passport Officer  (1967) 3 SCR 525wherein the petitioner carried two
passports   the   passport   authority   impounded   the   petitioner’s
passports in light of the fact that investigations were going on against
him in relation to offences under the Export and Import Control Act,
a   constitutional   bench   of   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   held   thatthe
expression   personal   liberty   in   Article   21   takes   in   the   right   of
locomotion and travel abroad and under Article 21 no person can be
deprived of his right to go abroad except according to the procedure
established by law. 

In the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v UOI  ((1978) 1 SCC
248), a seven­judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to
go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21 and
can only be restricted by a procedure which is non arbitrary, fair and
reasonable. 

 “In   Satwant   Singh   Sawhney's   case   this   Court   ruled,   by
majority,   that   the   expression   personal   liberty   which     occurs   in
Art. 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and
that no person can be deprived of that right except according to
procedure   established   by   law.   The   mere   prescription   of   some
kind of procedure cannot even meet the mandate of Article 21.
The   procedure   prescribed   by   law   has   to   be   fair,   just   and
reasonable,   not   fanciful,   oppressive   or   arbitrary.   The   question
whether the procedure prescribed by law which curtails or takes
away the personal  libertyguaranteed  by Art.  21  is reasonable
or   not   has     to   be   considered   not   in   the   abstract   or   on
hypotheticalconsiderations   like   the   provision   for   a   full­dressed
hearingas     in   a   court   room   trial   but   in   the   contest,   primarily,
ofthe  purpose  which the Act is intended to achieve and ofurgent
situations   which   those   who   are   charged   with   the   dutyof
administering the Act may be called upon to deal  with.Secondly,
even the fullest compliance with the requirements of   Art. 21 is
not the journey's end because a law which prescribes fair and
reasonable procedure for curtailing or taking away  the personal
liberty granted by  Art.  21 has still to meet a possible challenge
under the  other  provisions of the Constitution.”

This Hon’ble Court further held:
“Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and state action and ensures
fairness   and   equality   of   treatment.   The   principle   of
reasonableness,   which   legally   as   well   as   philosophically,   is   an
essential element of equality or non­arbitrariness pervades Article
14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated
by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to
be in  conformity with  Article 14. It must be “right and just and
fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would
be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not
be satisfied.” (at page 674)

 In light of the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21, 14
and 19, the Petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1524 of 2015 at the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi praying
for the Hon’ble High Court to pass a writ to set­asideSection 6(2)(f) of
the   Passport   Act,   1967   and   the   Notification   GSR   570(E)   dated
25.08.1993   issued   by   the   Union   of   India   in   so   far   as   they   are
arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and unconstitutional.

Facts of the Case
The Petitioner herein is an advocate­on­record of this Hon’ble Court
and is practicing law since 1983 at the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the High Court of Delhi. He is also a member of the governing body of
Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause. He is
a founding member of India Against Corruption (IAC). He is also the
convenor for Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reform (CJAR)
and   a   member   of   Committee   on   Judicial   Accountability   (CoJA). He
holds   an   MA   in   Philosophy   from   Princeton   University   and   has
authored two books. 

The Petitioner was issued a Passport no. F6531290 on 03.05.2006,
under the Passport’s Act, 1967 by the Respondents. The Petitioner,
being   a   founding   member   of   India   Against   Corruption   had   on
26.08.2012   staged   a   protest   in   Delhi   against   the   coal   scam.   The
Petitioner submits that though the protest was non­violent and within
his   right   to   freedom   of   speech   and   expression   guaranteed   under
Article   19(1)(a)   and   the   right   to   assemble   peaceably   without   arms
under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, a few cases were
registered against him by the police for violating Section 144 of the
CrPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984, for participating in an assembly which was declared unlawful.
These cases are pending in Patiala House courts. The details of the
cases are as under:

 a.) FIR

 

No.

 

71

 

and

 

72

 

of

 

2012

 

under

Section147/148/149/151/152/153/186/188/353/332/341
IPC   &   under   Section   3   of   Prevention   of   Damage   to   Public
Property   Act   ,   1984   pending   in   the   Court   of   Metropolitan
Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi
b.) FIR No. 130 of 2012 under Section 147/148/149186/188/353
IPC   and   under   Section   3   Prevention   of   Damage   to   Public
Property   Act,   1984   pending   in   the   Court   of   Metropolitan
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi
Both these FIRs pertain to the same events and are registered by two
different police stations i.e. PS Tuglak Road and PS Parliament Street.

Since   the   petitioner’s   passport   booklet   had   run   out   of   leaves,   the
petitioner   applied   for   a   reissue   of   passport.   For   the   purposes   of
getting the said passport renewed and a fresh passport issued, the
petitioner   visited   the   Regional   Passport   Office   and   applied   for   the
renewal/reissue   of   a   new   passport   vide   file   no.
GZ1077775399114.The petitioner in the said application mentioned
the   details   of   the   cases   pending   against   him.   Meanwhile,   the   old
passport   of   the   petitioner   was   cancelled  vide  letter   from   the
Respondent dated 26.06.2014. 

The   Respondents   informed   the   petitioner   that   in   order   to   get   his
passport reissued, he needs to first obtain a NOC from the concerned
court where criminal cases are pending against him. Therefore, the
petitioner moved the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) at Patiala
House Courts seeking a no objection certificate (NOC) for reissue of
his passport. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted an NOC by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 02.09.2014. 

Thereafter the Respondents reissued the passport of the petitioner for
a period of only 1 year till 11.09.2015, instead of issuing it for a full

 validity of one year. While the petitioner’s earlier passport was valid
till 03.05.2016, he was now issued a passport Z2884975 with validity
till 11.09.2015. As a justification for issuing a short validity passport,
the   Respondents   cited   Notification   No.   GSR   570(E)   issued   by   the
Respondent on 25.08.1993. The said letter states that the petitioner’s
request for re­issue of passport for full validity cannot be acceded to
unless the Court issues a fresh order in this regard.

After the expiry of the second passport on 11.09.2015, the petitioner
was   constrained   to   again   apply  for  reissue   of   a   new   passport.   The
petitioner, on the basis of the earlier NOC dated 02.09.2014 issued by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, was issued a new passport (passport
no. Z3467564) dated 03.12.2015 with a short validity of one year.

Vide  order dated 07.01.2016, a division bench of the High Court of
Delhi dismissed the petitioner’s Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1524 of 2015.
Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant Special Leave Petition.

Dates
25.08.1993

Events
Respondent   No.   1   issued   a   notification   no.   GSR
570(E) placing restrictions on the issue and renewal
of   passport   of       persons   against   whom   criminal
proceedings   are   pending.   A   copy   of   the   said
notification   no.   GSR   570(E)   issued   by   Respondent
No.1   dated   25.08.1993   is   annexed   herewith   as

03.05.2006

Annexure P1(pages_________to_________).
The Petitioner was issued passport no. F6531290 for 
a full validity of 10 years.

26.08.2012

India Against Corruption (IAC) staged a peaceful non­
violent   protest   against   the   coal   scam   of   which   the
petitioner is a founding member. Two FIRs pertaining
to   the   same   event   were   registered   by   two   different
police stations against the Petitioner. 

 26.06.2014

The   Petitioner   applied   to   Respondent   No.2   for   the
renewal/reissue   of   a   new   passport.  A   copy   of   the
acknowledgement   letter   dated   26.06.2014   given   to
the   petitioner   by   the   Respondent   No.   2   is   annexed
herewith   as  Annexure   2  (pages_______   to   _______).
The petitioner in the said application mentioned the
details   of   the   cases   pending   against   him.   As   per
procedure,   the   old   passport   of   the   petitioner   was
cancelled   vide   letter   from   the   Respondent   dated
26.06.2014.   A   copy   of   the   letter   dated   26.06.2014
from   the   respondent   to   the   petitioner   is   annexed
herewith   as  Annexure   P3  (pages_______   to   _______).
The Respondents informed the petitioner 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..

02.09.2014

The   petitioner   moved   the   Court   of   Metropolitan
Magistrate   (MM)   at   Patiala   House   Courts   seeking   a
(NOC) for the reissue of his passport. The petitioner
was   granted   a   NOC   by   the   learned   Metropolitan
Magistrate.   However,   the   NOC   did   not   specify   the
duration of validity of the passport. A copy of the said
order   dated   02.09.2014   of   the   Ld.   Metropolitan
Magistrate   is   annexed   herewith   as  Annexure   P4
pages(_______to________)

12.09.2014

The   Respondents   reissued   the   passport   of   the
petitioner for a period of only 1 year instead of for full
validity of 10 years. The said passport, (passport No.
Z2884975)   was   issued   to   the   Petitioner   from
12.09.2014 with a short validity of one year, stated to
expire   on   11.09.2015.  A   copy   of   the   petitioner’s
passport   that   expired   issued   on   12.09.2014is
annexed

 

herewith

 

P5pages(_________to_________). 

as

 Annexure

 15.09.2014

The Respondents in their letter dated 15.09.2014 to
the petitioner stated that the  petitioner’s request for
re­issue of passport for full validity cannot be acceded
to   unless   the   Court   issues   a   fresh   order   in   this
regard.  As   a   justification   for   the   above,   the
respondents  cited   the   Notification   No.   GSR   570(E)
dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Respondent.A copy of
the said letter from Respondent No.2  to the petitioner
is   annexed   herewith   as

 Annexure   P6

pages(________to________).
23.12.2014

The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
issues   a   Public   Advisory   stating   that   having   an
unexpired   passport   is   sometimes   not   enough   to
obtain Visas or to enter certain foreign countries. It
further   states   that  “the   Universal   practice   in   vogue
now   is:   “Once   your   passport   crosses   the   nine­year
mark, it is   time to get new passport”.  Therefore, the
petitioner   who   is   only   being   granted   short   duration
passport with a validity not more than one year has
to   apply   for   a   new   passport   every   6   months   if   he
wants   to   apply   for   a   visa.   A   copy   of   the   Public
Advisory dated 23.12.2014 issued by the Ministry of
External   Affairs,   Government   of   India   is   annexed
herewith as Annexure P7pages(________to________).

February

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1524 of 2015 in

2015

the   Hon’ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi.   The
writ   petition   was   thereby   amended   with   the
permission   of   the   Hon’ble   Court.   A   copy   of   the
amended Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2015 filed at the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is annexed herewith as
Annexure   P8  (pages_______to______).   The   petitioner
also pointed out that various countries do not issue a
visa   to   applicants   who   have   a   passport   which   may
expire in less than six months. This virtually leaves

 the petitioner ineligible to apply for a visa for many
countries for 6 out of 12 months of his short validity
passport.   A   table   compiled   by  the   petitioner   in   this
regard dated NIL, with the list of countries that do not
allow visa to Indian passport holders with passports
that   expire   in   less   than   six   months   after   their
intended   duration   of   stay   in   those   countries   is
annexed

 

herewith

 

as

 Annexure

P9pages(_______to_______).
11.09.2015

The   validity   of   petitioner’s   passport   no.  Z2884975
expired.  The   petitioner   applied   for   a   new   passport
using the same NOC dated 02.09.2014 issued by the
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.

03.12.2015

He was thereby issued a new passport (passport no.
Z3467564)   for   one   year   with   issuance
date03.12.2015and   expiration   dated   02.12.2016.   A
copy of the passport dated 03.12.2015 with one year
validity issued to the petitioner is annexed herewith
as Annexure P10pages(________to________).

07.01.2016

The   Hon’ble   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi
dismissed   the   petitioner’s   Writ   Petition   No.   1524   of
2016

    .02.2016

Hence the instant Special Leave Petition

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2016
(Against the final order and judgment passed by the Division Bench of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 07.01.2016
passed in Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2015.)

BETWEEN:
POSITION OF PARTIES

IN HIGH COURT
PrashantBhushan
Petitioner 
S/o Shri Shanti 
Bhushan
B­16, Sector 14, Noida 
­201301

IN SUPREME
COURT
          Petitioner 

Versus
1. Union of India
Respondent 
Through Its Secretary
No.1
Ministry of External 
Affairs
South Block, New Delhi
­110001

2. Union of India 
Through its Regional 
Passport Officer
CGO Complex­1
Kamala Nehru Nagar
Hapur Road, 
Ghaziabad

Respondent No.1

Respondent No.  Respondent No. 2
2

(ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his companion justices.
The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The   present   Special   Leave   Petition   is   preferred   against   the
impugned   judgment/order   dated   07.01.2016   in   Writ   Petition
No.1524 of 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in which thepetitioners writ petition seeking
a direction to the respondents to issue a full validity passport to
the   petitioner   and challenging   the vires of   Section   6(2)(f)   of
the Passports   Act,   1967   and Notification No.   GSR   570   (E)   dated
25.08.1993 was dismissed. It is submitted that no writ appeal or
LPA lies against the said order since it ispassed by the division
bench.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble
Court: 
A. Whether   the   Hon’ble   High   Court  erred   in   dismissing   the
petitioner’s writ petition on the ground that section  6(2) (f) of the
Passports Act and Notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 does
not   create   an   absolute   curtailment   fundamental   rights   of   the
petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
B. Whether   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   erred   in   not   appreciating   that
Section  6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 violates the petitioner’s
fundamental right to equality since it fails to make a distinction
between a person who is accused of having committed a heinous
crime and a person who is accused of a minor offence?
C. Whether   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   failed   to   appreciate   the   absurd
proposition created by Section 6(2)(f) and Notification No. GSR 570
(E)   issued   by   the   respondents   wherein   a   person   who   has   been
accused of a non­bailable, serious crime can easily obtain bail and

 can exercise his right to travel outside of India, but just because
the petitioner, who is accused of a bailable offence under Section
144 of CrPC, ran out of leaves in his passport booklet and applied
for the reissue of his passport, even after obtaining an NOC from
the Metropolitan Magistrate is only being issued a passport with
one year validity as opposed to the general rule of providing full
validity passport.
D. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that since the
Metropolitan Magistrate after close scrutiny provided the petitioner
with  an  unconditional  NOC to   travel  outside   of  the  country,  the
petitioner,   should   be   allowed   a   full   validity   passport   and   not   a
short validity passport of just one year?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):
The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal
has been filed by them against the order dated 07.01.2016 passed
by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2015.
1 DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
That the Annexures produced along with the Special Leave Petition
are true copies of the pleadings / documents which formed part of
the records of the case in the Courts below, against whose order,
the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
 1.    GROUNDS:
A. Because Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is in violation of
Article 14 as it does not distinguish between a person who is
accused of having committed a heinous 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.
B. BecauseSection 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act is arbitrary as it
fails   to   make   a   distinction   between   a   person   accused   of
bailable   and   a   non­bailable   offence.   In   a   case   of   bailable

 offence, a person against whom any criminal case is pending
shall get bail as a matter of right, however, such a person is
still restricted by Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and can
get a passport with a validity of only one year. Similarly, in a
case   where   there   is   a   case   pending   against   a   person   for
having committed a non­bailable offence, the court where the
person applies for bail has the opportunity to give bail upon
the condition that the person may not travel or may travel
under certain stipulated conditions. The concerned court has
all the right and the opportunity to put conditions of travel
upon a person against whom a criminal case in pending. But
in case where the concerned court chooses not to impose any
condition, to give power to the passport authority to deny the
passport violates Articles 14 and 21.
C. Becausethe restriction in Section (6)(2)(f) is totally arbitrary &
unreasonable since if the court concerned has not found it fit
to impound the passport of an accused or has not laid any
restriction   on   his   foreign   travel,   then   he   cannot   be   denied
issuance   or   reissuance   of   passport   merely   because   some
criminal case is pending against him.
D. Because the restriction in Section (6)(2)(f) is totally arbitrary
and unreasonable since a person who holds a valid passport
would not face this restriction, but only a person who does
not  hold   a  passport   or whose   passport  needs  renewal  will.
Therefore the said restriction is arbitrary, unreasonable and
also discriminatory, and thus in violation of Article 14 and 21
of the Constitution.
E. Becausethe restriction in Section (6)(2)(f) is totally arbitrary
and   unreasonable   since   a   person   accused   of   a   crime   is
presumed   to   be   innocent   and   restrictions   on   his   personal
liberty   can   only   be   imposed   the   criminal   court   concerned
where   his   case   is   brought   for   trial.   If   the   court   concerned
does not choose to impose any restriction on the liberty of
the accused, then the executive cannot deny a passport to a
person merely because some criminal case is pending against

 him. Therefore the Section 6(2)(f) violates Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution and is liable to be set­aside.
F. The Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that international
guidelines   require   that   an   applicant   must   have   sufficient
months remaining before his passport expires for him/her to
be able to make a trip to a country outside of India. Given the
visa   restrictions   in   mostcountries,   an   applicant   for   visa   is
ineligible for visa unless he has at least 3 to 6 month validity
remaining   on   his   passport   after   his/her   intended   stay.
Issuing   a   one   year   validity   passport   virtually   creates   a
situation where a passport holder keeps applying for a new
passport   every   few   months,   pay   the   requisite   fee   for
application   and   still   remain   ineligible   to   travel   outside   of
India for the large part of an year because he/she is rendered
ineligible   because   his   passport   will   soon   expire.   Such   a
restriction   is,   therefore,   violative   of   the   petitioner’s
fundamental   right   to   travel,   which   this   Hon’ble   Court   in
Maneka   Gandhi  has   held   to   be   a   fundamental   right   of   a
citizen under Artcie 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
G. Because a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in  Satwant   Singh   Sawhney   v.   D.   Ramarathnam,   Assistant
Passport   Officer  (1967)   3   SCR   525held   thatthe   expression
personal liberty in Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion
and   travel   abroad   and   under   Article   21   no   person   can   be
deprived   of   his   right   to   go   abroad   except   according   to   the
procedure established by law.
H. Because inManeka Gandhi v UOI (1978) 2 SCR 621, a seven­
judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right
to   go   abroad   is   a   part   of   right   to   personal   liberty   under
Article   21   which   can   only   be   restricted   by   a   procedure
consistent with the requirements of Article 14 and 19 of the
Constitution.   The   Court   held:  “Article   14   strikes   at
arbitrariness   and   state   action   and   ensures   fairness   and
equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which
legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of

 equality   or   non­arbitrariness   pervades   Article   14   like   a
brooding   omnipresence   and   the   procedure   contemplated   by
Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to
be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and
fair”   and   not   arbitrary,   fanciful   or   oppressive;   otherwise,   it
would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21
would not be satisfied.”
I.  Because the notification no. GSR 570(E) dated 25­08­1993,
requiring that a person against whom there is a criminal case
pending in any court in India must approach the concerned
court   seeking   an   order   permitting   him/her   to   depart   from
India, is unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable since if the Court
concerned has not found it fit to impound the passport of an
accused or has not laid any restriction on his foreign travel,
then   merely   because   a   person’s   passport   is   coming   up   for
renewal or reissue, he cannot be forced to first seek an NOC
from   the   court   only   because   some   case   is   pending   against
him. A person who holds a valid passport would not face this
restriction, but only a person who does not hold a passport
or whose passport requires a renewal will. Therefore the said
restriction   is   arbitrary,   unreasonable   and   also
discriminatory,   and   thus   in   violation   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution. This notification is also arbitrary since it makes
no distinction between persons facing charges of committing
heinous offences and those charged with mere presence in an
assembly which the police deems to be unlawful (as in the
case of the petitioner).
J. Because the notification no. GSR 570(E) dated 25­08­1993 is
arbitrary and unreasonable since it states that even after a
NOC from the Court concerned is received by an accused, the
passport shall be issued or renewed only for a short period of
1 year. This restriction is arbitrary and unreasonable since
once   the   Court   has   given   its   no   objection   to   an   accused
travelling abroad, there can be no justification for restricting
the passport validity for 1 year. Only if the Court itself states

 that   a   limited   validity   period   passport   be   issued   to   a
particular accused, then only a limited validity passport may
be issued. In all other cases, full validity passport ought to be
issued. Therefore, the notification in so far as it states that
only   1   year   validity   passport   can   be   issued   is   arbitrary,
unfair, discriminatory and unreasonable. It thus falls foul of
the equality clause of the Constitution  enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution. It is also in violation of Article 21 of
the   Constitution   of   India   as   interpreted   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi case (quoted above) since
it   restricts   liberty   of   an   individual   in   an   arbitrary   and
unreasonable manner.
K. Because in not granting the petitioner a full validity passport
of 10 years, the respondents 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.
6.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

A.

Thatthe petitioner is having to face a lot of travel impediments

and hardship because of the short validity in his passport rendering it
almost impossible for him to travel for a large duration of an year.
B.

That the petitioner has a good prima facie case and is likely to

succeed in the matter.
C.

That the  balance  of  convenience  is in  favour of the  petitioner

and that no prejudice or harm would be caused to the respondents if
the interim relief is granted.

MAIN PRAYERS

7.

In view of the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a.

Grant   special   leave   to   appeal   against   the   final   order   and
judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

 Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 07.01.2016 passed in Writ
Petition No. 5214 of 2015.

b.

Pass such other and further orders as this Court may deem
fit and proper in the interests of justice.

1. INTERIM PRAYERS:
It   is   most   respectfully   prayed   that   this   Hon’ble   Court   may
graciously be pleased to pass the following ad­interim directions:
a.

Stay   the   notification   no.   GSR   570(E)   dated   25­08­1993
issued by Respondent No. 1 in so far as it requires a passport
applicant facing a criminal case to produce a NOC from the
court concerned and in so far as it states that if no period is
mentioned in the NOC granted by the court concerned, then
the passport shall be reissued for only 1 year.

b.

Direct   the   Respondents   to   reissue   the   petitioner’s   passport
with full validity of 10 years.

c.

Issue such other writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble
court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   under   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case.    

 Through

KAMINI JAISWAL
Counsel for the Petitioner
Drawn by: Ms. NehaRathi
Dated:         February 2016
New Delhi

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:

PRASHANT BHUSHAN

...Petitioner
VERSUS

Union of India and Anr.            

...Respondents

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the
Pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged and the
other   documents   relied   upon   in   those   proceedings.   No   additional
facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon
in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of
documents/   Annexures   attached   to   the   Special   Leave   Petition   are
necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the Petition or to
make out grounds urged in Special Leave Petition for consideration of
this   Hon’ble   Court.     This   certificate   is   given   on   the   basis   of   the
instructions given by the person authorized by the Petitioner whose
affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.
FILED BY:

KAMINI JAISWAL
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

 INDEX
S No.

Particulars

Page
Numbers

1.

Listing proforma

2.

Office Report

3.

Synopsis and list of dates

4.

Memo of Parties

5.

Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6.

Appendix:   Relevant   statutory   provisions

7.

mentioned in the impugned order
Annexure P1– . A copy of the said notification
no.   GSR   570(E)   issued   by   Respondent   No.1
dated 25.08. (pages_________to_________).

8.

Annexure P2 – A copy of the acknowledgement
letter dated 26.06.2014 given to the petitioner
by the Respondent No. 2

9.

Annexure   P3­  A   copy   of   the   letter   dated
26.06.2014   from   the   respondent   to   the
petitioner

10.

Annexure P4­  A copy of the said order giving
NOC  dated 02.09.2014 of the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate

11.

Annexure   P5­  A   copy   of   the   petitioner’s
passport that expired on 11.09.2015

12.

Annexure   P6­  A   copy   of   the   letter   from
Respondent No.2  to the petitioner stating that
the petitioner’s request for re­issue of passport

 for full validity cannot be acceded to unless the
13.

Court issues a fresh order in this regard. 
Annexure   P7­  A   copy   of   the   Public   Advisory
dated   23.12.2014   issued   by   the   Ministry   of
External Affairs, Government of India

14.

Annexure   P8­  A   copy   of   the   amended   Writ
Petition No. 1524 of 2015 filed at the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi

15.

Annexure P9­  A table showing countries that
refuse to grant a visa to applicants who have a
passport that expires in less than six months

16.

beyond the intended duration of stay.
I.A.   No.   __________   of   2016:Application   for

17.

Permission to file additional documents
Annexure P10­  A copy of the passport dated
03.12.2015 with one year validity issued to the
petitioner