BJP leader opposes giving NOC for passport to Rahul Gandhi, hearing will be held again today -aabtak24


Rahul Gandhi Passport: A hearing will be held in the Rouse Avenue Court on May 26, i.e. today, regarding the demand for No Objection Certificate (NOC) by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for getting a new passport. In this case, the complainant Subramanian Swamy was asked to file a reply on behalf of the court. Swamy has opposed the issue of NOC to Rahul Gandhi. He has said that Rahul frequently goes abroad and his going out can affect the investigation of the ongoing cases against him. Although the court made it clear that this is his fundamental right, Swamy was given time to file his reply. 

Rahul Gandhi needs NOC
During the hearing of this case, the court had said that for the last five years Rahul is going out and his lawyers also appear in the court on every hearing. . The court said that Right to Travel is a fundamental right. ACMM Mehta said that while granting bail to Gandhi in December 2015, the court had not imposed any restrictions on his travel. The magistrate said that the court had then rejected Swamy’s request to ban Gandhi’s visit. Let us tell you that Rahul Gandhi had surrendered his diplomatic passport after leaving the Parliament. Because of his name in the National Herald case, Rahul needs NOC from the court to issue an ordinary passport.

What is the whole matter
Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as an MP after he was convicted in a criminal defamation case by a court in Surat, Gujarat. After this, Rahul had returned the diplomatic travel documents. Gandhi introduced ‘ordinary passport’ Have approached the court to get NOC. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘surname’ Congress leader’s sentence has been suspended in a defamation case filed over remarks about.

The National Herald case is based on a private criminal complaint by Swamy against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others, accusing them of cheating, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. The court, while granting him bail on December 9, 2015, had observed that the accused were eminent persons and there was no apprehension that they would flee the country. 


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top