Gujarat High Court Directs Passport Authority To Decide Renewal Plea Of Congress MLA Vimal Chudasama Convicted In Rioting Case
Lovina B Thakkar
24 Dec 2024 11:05 AM IST
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Passport Authority to decide the plea of Congress MLA Vimal Chudasama–who has court case pending–for renewal of passport, in view of Ministry of External Affairs's notification which permits Indian citizens–against whom criminal proceedings are pending in court–to travel abroad if they present a court order.
Under Section 6 of the Passport Act the passport authority can refuse of passports/ travel documents. Section 6(2)(f) states that passport authority can refuse to issue passport if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. The MEA notification issued in 1993 exempts the application of Section 6(2)(f) on such Indian citizens against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India if they produce a court order.
Chudasama was convicted for offences under IPC Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt with imprisonment up to 1 year or a fine, or both), 148 (Punishment for rioting, armed with a deadly weapon with imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine, or both) and 147 (Punishment for rioting, with imprisonment up to 2 years or a fine, or both) by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in 2023.He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
Against this he moved an appeal, along with applications for suspension of sentence and conviction before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court allowed the suspension of sentence application but rejected the application for suspension of conviction. Against the refusal of suspension of conviction application, Chudasama moved the High Court in a revision plea that is pending hearing. In view of the pendency of this case, the Passport Authority refused to renew his passport.
Additional Advocate General Kshitij Amin submitted that Chudasama's case would be governed by the notification/circular dated August 25, 1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and the "application would be decided accordingly".
Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee observed “In view of the pendency of the case, the authority has required the petitioner to furnish the Court's order. In this behalf, it is pertinent to take note of the notification/circular dated 25.8.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, providing that in the interest of public at large, the citizens, be exempted, against whom the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before the Criminal Court.”
The relevant extracts of the notification of August 1993 include that the passport shall be issued for:
1. for the period specified in order of the court or if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for one year
2. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year
3. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.
4. the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuisng authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance to force of the passport so issued.
The Court then said, “In view of the above, the respondent Passport Authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport with a validity period of five years in terms of the notification/circular dated 25.8.1993. Needless to say that the exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.”
With the above direction, the Court disposed of the Petition.
