Maneka Redux? Prashant Bhushan moves Delhi High Court after Ministry of External Affairs gives him passport valid for only one year

The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition by Advocate Prashant Bhushan wherein Bhushan had challenged the denial of passport of full validity, merely because of a pending criminal case. Justice Rajiv Shakder, while issuing notice, stated that “If a court impounds the passport or puts restrictions on foreign travel, then only can the validity of the passport be restricted.”.Prashant Bhushan had applied for a fresh passport upon which he was informed that in order to get his passport re-issued, he needed to first obtain a NOC from the concerned court where criminal cases were pending against him. Being a founding member of India against Corruption (IAC), Bhushan was a part of protest held in Delhi in the year 2012 against the coal scam. As a result, cases were registered against him for violating Section 144 of the CrPC and participating in an unlawful assembly. These cases are pending in the Patiala House courts..Accordingly, Bhushan sought an NOC from the Patiala House Courts and the said NOC was granted, without any stipulation on time period or condition upon the reissue of the passport. But the passport was renewed only for a year as opposed to its full validity of 10 years. Justifying the same, the Union stated that a 10-year passport would only be issued if the Court concerned issues a fresh order in this regard..In his writ petition, Bhushan has challenged Notification No. GSR 570(E) issued more than two decades ago. The notification states that a person against whom there is a pending criminal case may approach the court concerned seeking an order permitting him/her to depart from India. The Petition, a copy of which is with Bar & Bench, states that:-.“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, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”.The petition further stated:-.“A person facing criminal cases but 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 this notification is also arbitrary and discriminatory 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 Bench also said that it would re-examine the aforesaid notification and listed the matter for further hearing on March 16, 2015.