High Court Mandates Swift Passport Decision in Criminal Allegations
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a directive to central passport authorities, ordering them to decide within one month whether to cancel travel documents allegedly issued to individuals facing a series of criminal charges across three states. This order came in response to a petition filed by a Ludhiana physician, Dr. Sumeet Sofat, who claims that his legal rivals obtained full-validity passports by hiding their involvement in seven pending criminal cases.
Allegations of Concealment and Property Dispute
Dr. Sumeet Sofat, the petitioner, alleges that the accused individuals are entangled in a 22-year property dispute with him over prime real estate in Ludhiana's Threeke village. He asserts that despite facing FIRs (First Information Reports) in Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, the group managed to bypass mandatory background checks. The charges against them include financial crimes such as forgery, cheating, and impersonation, as well as violent offenses related to the long-standing property feud. Additionally, the petition claims a breach of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, which restricts passport issuance to those with active criminal proceedings without explicit court permission.
Claims of Systemic Failures and International Flight
Dr. Sofat's plea suggests deeper systemic issues, alleging that the accused, whom he described as "politically influential," secured passports through forged affidavits and false declarations. The petition further states that one of the accused has already fled to Canada, while others are reportedly preparing to leave the country to evade prosecution. Dr. Sofat had sought immediate impounding of the passports and initiation of criminal proceedings against both the holders and any officials who may have facilitated the issuance.
Court's Directive and Legal Timeline
Disposing of the petition at the initial stage, the high court refrained from ruling on the merits of the allegations but imposed a strict timeline on the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) in Chandigarh. The court observed, "The competent authority must consider the petitioner's representation dated Oct 10, 2025, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks, strictly in accordance with the law." By doing so, the court avoided prolonged proceedings while ensuring that the Chandigarh RPO is legally bound to investigate the veracity of the doctor's claims and determine if the passports were obtained fraudulently.
Key Legal Provisions Under Scrutiny
The case centers on the Passport Act, 1967, with two critical sections in focus. Section 6(2)(f) prohibits the issuance of a passport if proceedings for an offense alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Section 12(1)(b) outlines penalties for knowingly furnishing false information or suppressing material information to obtain a passport. These provisions are pivotal in assessing whether the accused individuals violated legal requirements in securing their travel documents.
This development highlights ongoing concerns about passport issuance procedures and the enforcement of laws designed to prevent individuals with criminal backgrounds from obtaining travel documents. The high court's order emphasizes the need for timely and reasoned decisions by authorities to uphold legal integrity and public safety.
