List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti in the case of Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2025) set aside the Telangana High Court's decision and ruled that renewal of a driving licence after a gap does not establish continuous possession for recruitment eligibility purposes.

What was the Background of Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board issued notifications in April-May 2022 to fill 325 posts of Police Constable (Driver) and Driver Operator in Fire Services. 
• The eligibility condition required candidates to possess a valid LMV/HMV driving licence continuously for a period of full two years and above as on the date of notification. 
• Several candidates whose licences had expired during the two-year period but were renewed within the one-year window permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act applied for the posts. 
• The Recruitment Board rejected these candidates on the ground that their licences had not been held continuously due to the gap between expiry and renewal. 
• The Telangana High Court allowed these candidates to participate, reasoning that renewal takes effect from the date of expiry, meaning there was no break in continuity. 
• The Recruitment Board challenged this interpretation before the Supreme Court, arguing that expired licence holders become legally incompetent to drive during the interregnum between expiry and renewal. 
• The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 had deleted the earlier proviso granting a 30-day grace period after expiry of a licence. 
• Under the amended law, a licence ceases to be valid immediately upon expiry unless renewed.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court placed significant reliance on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which removed the grace period, noting that a licence now ceases to be valid immediately upon expiry. 
• The Court observed that under the amended law, unless renewed, the licence holder suffers a legal disability to drive from the very next day after expiry. 
• The bench stated that the plain words of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 do not provide for the licence to continue after its expiry even for a single day. 
• The Court interpreted "continuously" in its plain meaning as "uninterrupted, without break or cessation", holding that any period during which a candidate was not legally authorized to drive constitutes a break in continuity. 
• The Court rejected the theory that renewal operates retrospectively for assessing continuous entitlement, stating "The theory that once a licence is renewed, even after a gap, the renewal would operate from a back date implying that the licence was continuing and valid even for and during the interregnum cannot be countenanced." 
• The Court found the High Court's interpretation erroneous, holding that retrospective effect operates only for document validity, not for assessing continuous lawful entitlement under recruitment rules. 
• The Court emphasized that driving involves hands-on experience coupled with regular practice, and lack of practice may hinder capability, especially for police purposes and disaster response/recovery. 
• The bench held that the interregnum between expiry and renewal, even if short, was fatal to eligibility under the recruitment rules. 
• The Court allowed the appeal, ruling that candidates whose licences had expired and were renewed after a gap did not satisfy the requirement of continuous possession and were therefore ineligible. 

What is the Continuous Possession Requirement for Driving Licences? 

About: 

• Recruitment notifications for driver posts in police and fire services often require candidates to possess a valid driving licence continuously for a specified period preceding the notification date. 
• This requirement ensures that candidates have sustained driving experience and current competence rather than merely holding a paper qualification. 
• The continuity requirement is distinct from simply having held a licence at some point, as it mandates uninterrupted legal authorization to drive. 

Validity and Expiry under Motor Vehicles Act: 

• Under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, driving licences are issued for specific validity periods and must be renewed upon expiry. 
• Originally, a proviso provided a 30-day grace period after expiry during which the licence remained valid. 
• The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 deleted this grace period proviso, meaning licences now cease to be valid immediately upon expiry. 
• Renewal must be applied for within one year from the date of expiry, but during the gap between expiry and renewal, the holder has no legal authority to drive. 

Continuous Possession vs. Renewal with Retrospective Effect: 

• While renewal of a driving licence may have retrospective effect for the validity of the document itself, this does not mean the licence holder had continuous legal authority to drive during the interregnum. 
• For recruitment eligibility purposes, the continuous possession requirement assesses whether the candidate was legally authorized to drive throughout the prescribed period. 
• Any gap between expiry and renewal breaks this continuity, even if the renewal is completed within the statutory one-year window. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that driving capability requires regular practice and hands-on experience, not merely paper validity of documents. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Another (2025) allowed an appeal and directed passport renewal, holding that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be used to impose an indefinite bar on passport renewal when competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Another (2025) Case? 

• The appeal was filed by businessman Mahesh Kumar Agarwal challenging the denial of his passport renewal. 
• The appellant's passport had expired in August 2023. 
• Both the NIA Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court (where his appeal against a CBI conviction was pending) had granted "no objection" for renewal. 
• The criminal courts imposed strict conditions: the appellant could not travel abroad without prior court permission, and the Ranchi court ordered the renewed passport to be re-deposited with it. 
• Despite these judicial permissions, the Passport Authority refused renewal, citing the embargo under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. 
• Section 6(2)(f) mandates refusal of passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant. 
• The Calcutta High Court upheld this refusal, interpreting the law to mean that unless the criminal court's order specified permission for a particular foreign trip, the bar was absolute. 
• The appellant argued that the criminal courts had consciously permitted renewal while retaining control over any foreign travel.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is not an absolute bar and must be read along with Section 22 and the exemption notification GSR 570(E). 
• The bench observed that both the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism. 
• The Court found that they converted a qualified restriction into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where criminal courts did not consider such disability necessary. 
• Justice Vikram Nath underscored that liberty under Article 21 is not a gift of the State but its first obligation, stating "The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21." 
• The Court emphasized that any restraint must be narrowly confined, proportionate and clearly anchored in law. 
• The Court cautioned that procedural safeguards should not be converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions. 
• The Court held that the legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court. 
• The bench observed that this purpose was fully served by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court and Delhi High Court requiring prior permission before foreign travel. 
• The Court noted that to add an indefinite denial of renewed passport when both criminal courts had consciously permitted renewal would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant's liberty. 
• The Court stated that refusing renewal on speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport would be second-guessing the criminal courts' assessment of risk. 
• The Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to reissue the appellant's ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years. 

What is The Passports Act, 1967? 

• The Object of this Act is to provide for issue of passports and travel documents. 
• The Act regulates the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto. 
• Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 lays down grounds for refusal of passports.

What is the Law Regarding Renewal of Passport During Pendency of Criminal Proceedings?  

• Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020): 
  • The Supreme Court held that refusal of a passport can only be in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. (Section 6(2)(e) of Passports Act,1967). 
  • The renewal of passport cannot be refused on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending against the accused. 
• Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and Another (2023): 
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. 
  • Therefore, the pendency of a case is not a ground to refuse, renew or to demand the surrender of a passport.