The Delhi High Court has said that appropriate proceedings “would be warranted” against real estate baron Sushil Ansal, convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire incident that claimed 59 lives, for misleading the government and misrepresenting on oath while applying for passport.
Justice Najmi Waziri also ordered lodging of an FIR against the police officers who in 2013 had given a favourable verification report to Ansal, despite his non-disclosure about his conviction in the Uphaar case, which led to issuance of the travel document to him.
“Apropos the cases against the police officers, let an FIR be registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, under appropriate sections of law and a report be filed in four weeks,” the judge said.
The High Court rejected the argument made on behalf of Ansal that a citizen was not compelled under the Passports Act to give the information sought from him when applying for travel document under the tatkaal scheme.
It said the scheme was a “special arrangement” for issuing a passport on an urgent basis and is subject to receipt of requisite information by the government. The court said Ansal availed the benefit and specifically deposed on an affidavit that he had never been punished by any criminal court for an offence.
The court’s observation came while hearing a plea moved by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), through its chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy, seeking a CBI probe into the alleged criminal misconduct by passport and police officials in issuing the travel document to Ansal.
Ms. Krishnamoorthy, who lost her two children in the tragedy, has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of the victims’ families for the last 20 years. A fire at Uphaar cinema during the screening of Border on June 13, 1997 killed 59 people.
With regard to the relaxation granted to Ansal in 2018, when Ansal applied for a fresh passport, by changing the requirement for pre-police verification to post-police verification, the court said there was no explanation for this. It asked the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to look into this and give a report within four weeks.
“Let the matter be looked into by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, MEA. The report be filed in court, in a sealed cover. The inquiry report would suggest measures for plugging in such lacunae…and furnishing of such other specific information as may be deemed necessary from an applicant for issuance of a passport,” the court said.