**

Delhi Police is reportedly considering initiating proceedings for the cancellation of passports belonging to individuals accused in various riot cases across the capital. This significant development comes amidst ongoing protests and expressed concerns from organizations such as Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). The proposed action signals a potentially intensified approach by law enforcement to ensure accountability and restrict the movement of those facing serious charges, particularly in cases involving public disorder and violence.

The move by Delhi Police aims to address concerns regarding the flight risk posed by individuals facing grave accusations. Authorities are exploring this measure to prevent accused persons from absconding from justice, ensuring their continued presence within the country for the duration of investigations and trials. Officials have indicated that such steps are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and preventing delays often caused by an accused person's absence. Riot cases, due to their nature and potential for widespread impact, are often considered serious offenses warranting stringent legal and administrative measures.

The legal framework for such an action is provided by the Passports Act, 1967. This legislation empowers passport issuing authorities to impound or revoke passports under specific circumstances. These include situations where a criminal proceeding is pending against the holder, where a warrant or summons for the commission of an offense has been issued by a court, or if the passport authority deems it necessary in the public interest. The process typically involves a police recommendation to the passport authority, which then issues a show-cause notice to the individual, allowing them an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made. This legal mechanism aims to balance the right to travel with the imperative of criminal justice.

The reported police initiative has quickly drawn attention from civil society organizations. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an organization dedicated to human rights and advocating for justice, is reportedly engaged in protests related to these developments. While the specific demands or scale of the CJP protest have not been detailed, their involvement underscores broader concerns often raised by civil liberties groups. Such concerns typically revolve around the principle of due process, the potential for arbitrary application of such powers, and the impact on the fundamental rights of individuals, including their freedom of movement, particularly when cases are still in the investigative or trial phase. The legal community and human rights activists often scrutinize the criteria and transparency of such administrative actions.

Key Details and Implications:

  • Target Group: Individuals currently accused in various riot-related cases within the Delhi jurisdiction.
  • Police Rationale: To mitigate the risk of flight, ensure the availability of accused persons for ongoing investigations and court proceedings, and uphold the judicial process.
  • Legal Basis: Powers vested in passport authorities under the Passports Act, 1967, specifically sections that allow for the impounding or revocation of passports for individuals facing criminal charges.
  • Procedural Steps: Typically involves a recommendation from law enforcement, a show-cause notice to the passport holder, and a decision by the passport issuing authority.
  • Civil Society Response: Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has registered its concerns through protests, highlighting potential issues related to due process and civil liberties.
  • Impact on Accused: Passport cancellation severely restricts international travel, effectively grounding individuals within the country while their legal cases proceed.

Looking ahead, further details regarding the specific cases targeted, the exact number of individuals affected, and the progress of these administrative proceedings are anticipated. The unfolding situation highlights the ongoing legal and ethical debates surrounding the exercise of state power in criminal justice, especially when it intersects with fundamental individual freedoms. The reactions from legal experts, civil society organizations, and the courts will likely shape the discourse around this enforcement strategy.