Madras High Court
Sri-La-Sri Arunagirinathar Sri ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 21 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1989MAD3, AIR 1989 MADRAS 3
ORDER Mohan, J.
1. This writ petition is admitted. The writ petition is taken up today for final disposal as requested by Mr. M. Ganapathi and as agreed to by the learned Advocate General.
2. This writ petition for mandamus, forbearing the respondents from preventing the petitioner from going on the foreign tour to Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand and People's Republic of China with their personal staff. The facts which need not be dealt with in detail are as follows-
3. The petitioner is the 292nd Spritual Head of the Madurai Adheenam. He is taking an active interest in the Tamil language and culture and supporting the causes on the language issue in Tamil Nadu. He had traveled abroad to several countries including U.S.A. for propagating Hindu religion. He has been invited by foreign associations in Singapore, Malaysia, Hongkong, Thailand . and People's Republic of China for participating in various seminars, worships and functions and to address on the Hindu Religion and its culture. His itinerary was to commence on 27-12-1986 with the arrival at Singapore on that date and thereafter to attend various meetings, seminars, poojas and worships in various places in the different countries till 17-1-1987 and return to India on 18-1-1987. The petitioner made arrangements for travel as well as for participation in the aforesaid functions. He holds a valid passport bearing No. S.310551. The same is valid till 1-4-1987. He had also obtained a 'No objection certificate' issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Singapore, dated 4-12-1986 permitting him to visit Singapore valid up to 9-1-1987.
4. On 26-12-1986 at about 9 p.m. the petitioner left the hotel for the 'Air Port to commence his onward journey to Singapore. All the travel documents were shown to the authorities and were cleared by all concerned and the boarding card, giving seat No. 16-A and C for himself and his companion for the flight to Singapore, departing from Madras at 23-50 hours on that date. The petitioner proceeded to the security check in the Airport at about 22.45 hours, when he was told by the Imigration Officials that an order has been received from the Government of Tamil Nadu, to stop his onward journey and prevent him from leaving India. When the petitioner demanded a copy of the order or at least to show him the order, he was not given the same. However, there was a reply that only a telephonic message has been issued stopping the petitioner from proceeding abroad. After some arguments, he returned. Till today no information has been received for this interdiction. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred.
5. Mr. Ganpathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that as on today the law is very clear that right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been so laid down in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, and the same has been reiterated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, . Therefore, that right cannot be curtailed whimsically and arbitrarily except in a manner known to law.
6. The law on this subject is governed by the Passports Act, 1967. Section 3 of the Passports Act clearly lays down that no person shall depart from this country unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. In so far as the petitioner holds a valid passport, the validity of which extends to 1-4-1987, by a mere oral order, he cannot be interdicted, nor can he be prevented from traveling abroad. The position is all the more so with reference to the Head of a Mutt, propagating Hindu religion. It has been laid down in Bijoe Emmanual v. State of Kerala, that propagation of religion is also a fundamental right falling within the purview of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Even the Emigration Officials have filed a counter-affidavit stating that because they had received certain message from the police officials of Tamil Nadu that a criminal case is pending against him, he should not be allowed to proceed abroad. This criminal case which is stated to have been pending, has been there for a long time, at any rate, since 1984. Even during the pendency of this criminal case, the petitioner had proceeded on an earlier occasion to U.S.A. as his passport would evidence it. Therefore, looked at from any point of view, that prevention of the petitioner from going abroad has no basis at all in law and consequently the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
7. The learned Advocate-General states that there is no demur to the proposition of law cited by the other side that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the restrictions as to travel are as laid down under the Passports Act. Presently there are vital information in the possession of the State Government which would attract Section 10(3)(c) and Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, which, if placed before the concerned Passport Officer, might even entail either impounding or revocation of the passport. It is true the petitioner traveled abroad (USA) while the criminal cases were pending. But that does not mean that under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, the authority concerned cannot take necessary action. It was only with a view to pass on that information that oral interdict was made. It is not denied by the petitioner that a criminal case is pending.
8. In this case, I find that there is no basis in law that by a mere oral order the petitioner could be prevented from traveling abroad. Section 3 of the Passport Act says that no person shall depart, or attempt to depart from India unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel documents. The petitioner is a holder of a passport bearing No. S. 310551, the validity of which is up to 1-4-1987. Therefore, so long as he holds the passport, he cannot be prevented from traveling abroad, because it cannot be gainsaid that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, speaks eloquently about the same.
9. Then, the only other question will be, as regards the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him. But here again the officer concerned is the Passport authority, under Section 10 who alone is permitted to take action. As to who is the Passport Authority is laid down under Section 2(c), That says that Passport Authority' means an officer or authority empowered under rules made under this Act to issue passports or travel documents and includes the Central Government. Therefore, the Regional Passport Authority, Madras, who issued the passport or the Central Government, as the case may be, alone can take action under Section 10 of the Act. Of course, it is open to the State Government to pass on any information which, the learned Advocate-General says, is in possession of the State Government to the concerned officer who may take action. But that has nothing to do with the oral interdiction.
10. Mr. Ganapathi informs me that his client has planned to leave India for Singapore on 2-2-1987. If that be so, he will be permitted to leave unless, of course, action is taken under Section 10(3) of the Act by the concerned Officer, in the meanwhile. It is open to the State Government to supply the Officer with such information, as it may have in its possession, about which. I say nothing.
11. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.