Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(39) These were supplied only to the Court and copy thereof was not given to the petitioner's counsel or the counsel for respondent no.2.

                                   9 of 20

 115-CWP-5492-2022                                                                - 10 -



Consideration by the Court

(40)              Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. SP Jain,

Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Shweta Nahata, Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 & 4, Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Mayur Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.5 reiterated the contentions of their respective clients. The right to travel abroad is enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution of India (41) Way Back in 1967, the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer6, held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law. At that time the said decision was rendered there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh case ( 6 supra) was struck down as invalid.

(42) After this decision was rendered, the Passport Act,1967 was enacted by Parliament and it laid down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so.

(43) In Maneka Gandhi ( 1 supra), the petitioner was the holder of an Indian passport issued to her on June 1, 1976 under the Passports Act, 1967. On July 4, 1977 the petitioner received a letter dated July 2, 1977 from the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi intimating to her that it AIR 1967 SC 1836 10 of 20 115-CWP-5492-2022 - 11 -

(44) A 7-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 1978 declared that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. It held:

" 5. ...Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that it lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney-General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was