- (1.) The application for passport filed by the petitioner was rejected on 04.01.1999 under Section 6(2)(i) of the Passport Act. The Government had also in appeal rejected his passport application by its orders dated 29.01.2004. The petition is filed on the ground that after the conviction was rendered under the provisions of Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 read with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, where the petitioner had been serving a life imprisonment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had commuted his life sentence for the period of service already undergone and he was ordered to be released on 03.10.1996.
(2.) According to the petitioner, there is no particular impediment against the issuance of passport especially when more than 5 years have expired since the order of release and there is no bar under any of the provisions of the Passport Act from issuing the passport. The Union has contended that the State Government had not made a favourable recommendation. The State has itself filed a reply stating that although the petitioner had been convicted in a heinous crime and for an anti-national activity, he has not come in any adverse activity subsequent to his release.
(3.) As of now, there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. A right of freedom of movement is a constitutional guarantee and it could be fettered only by the law which imposes reasonable restrictions. The reasonableness of the restriction will be tested on what the law itself contains. In this case, the Passport Act makes provisions for persons, who are convicted of offences involving moral turpitude if the conviction falls within a period of 5 years prior to the date of his application and sentenced to an imprisonment of not less than 2 years. Admittedly, there is no case pending now. None of the grounds which are mentioned under Section 10(2)(a) to (i) are attracted. The petitioner shall, therefore, be favourably considered and the competent authority amongst respondents is directed to issue a passport in accordance with law.;