The Delhi High Court has granted permission to a 73-year-old applicant, who has been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, to travel overseas for the purpose of embarking on the sacred Hajj pilgrimage.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, overseeing the proceedings, acknowledged the profound importance of the Hajj pilgrimage, affirming that, "The Hajj pilgrimage holds profound significance within the Islamic faith, serving as one of the five pillars of Islam and constituting a religious obligation for every Muslim. Its significance cannot be overstated, carrying immense spiritual and cultural weight for Muslims."

The petitioner, Syed Abu Ala, who had been convicted by a trial court under multiple sections of the NDPS Act and subsequently sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with fines, approached the High Court while his appeal was pending. He sought permission to undertake the Umrah pilgrimage in Mecca and Medina and requested the issuance of a passport to facilitate his travel.

Following a sentence served for approximately 10 years and 3 months, the petitioner lodged an appeal against their conviction with the relevant court. Subsequently, on May 30, 2011, the court issued an order suspending the sentence, albeit with the condition that the petitioner remain confined to Delhi and surrender their passport.

The petitioner's legal representative argued that Syed diligently complied with the terms set forth in the suspension order, including surrendering the passport to the Regional Passport Office in Delhi. It was further asserted that the petitioner consistently adhered to all conditions outlined in the suspension order.

The counsel stressed that the petitioner, aged approximately 73 years, expresses a sincere desire to undertake a sacred pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah during the first week of February 2024. The significance of this religious journey, typically spanning three weeks, was underscored, highlighting its importance to the petitioner.

The court was also made aware that the petitioner had proactively applied for the re-issuance of his passport with the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, submitting the application on December 26, 2023. Consequently, it was requested before the court to grant permission for a period of four weeks, facilitating the petitioner's journey to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia to perform Umrah.

Additionally, the counsel urged the court to issue directives to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, for the re-issuance of the passport in favor of the petitioner, thereby enabling him to undertake the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

In contrast, the Special Counsel representing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) argued that the petitioner's plea merely reiterates conditions set forth in a previous court order suspending his sentence. Emphasizing the severity of the petitioner's conviction under the NDPS Act and the prolonged pendency of the appeal since 2010, the Special Counsel contended that it is in the interest of justice to conclude the appeal before considering the current application. Consequently, the Special Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the petitioner’s application.

Taking into account the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, notably Section 6(2) delineating grounds for passport refusal, the Court scrutinized the petitioner's case. It emphasized two specific grounds under which a passport could be refused: firstly, if the applicant had been convicted of a morally reprehensible offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years within the last five years, and secondly, if there were pending criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Citing a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Sabir v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court elucidated the differentiation between clauses (e) and (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act. It underscored that clause (e) applies to situations where no appeal from conviction is pending, whereas clause (f) pertains to cases where an appeal is pending.

Conclusively, the Court affirmed its stance of not obstructing the petitioner's religious duties solely due to the prolonged pendency of his appeal and granted the petitioner permission to travel abroad for one month to Saudi Arabia for the purpose of performing Hajj/Umrah pilgrimage, subject to the following conditions:

i. The applicant must provide a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety of a similar amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

ii. The applicant is required to inform the concerned Trial Court about their travel itinerary, including the date of departure and arrival.

iii. The applicant must refrain from exiting immigration at transit points, if any.

iv. Upon their return to India, the applicant must promptly submit a copy of their e-tickets and passport, which contains the entry regarding their visit, before the Trial Court.