Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967
It is, thus, obvious that the Passports Act, 1967 was enacted
subsequent to the judgment delivered in Satwant Singh Sawhney's case
(supra). It was felt by the Parliament that it was imperative to enact a
law to regulate foreign travel and issuance of travel documents in respect
thereof. This also necessitated that a machinery for this purpose be set
up. This was done by enacting the Passports Act, 1967 which received
the assent of the President of India on 24th June, 1967. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons thereto is of special relevance for the purpose of
decision of this case, which reads thus:
Section 5 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
However, in a later judgment, reported as Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India, (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 248, provisions of the
Passports Act were considered and following observations were made by
Their Lordships:-
The Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920
Satwant Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 30 May, 1986
"Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Satwant
Singh Sawhney v. The Union of India passports were issued
by the Government in the exercise of its executive power to
conduct foreign relations. A passport was considered to be
CWP No.4519 of 2008 5
essentially a political document, issued in the name of the
President of India to the Governments of, or authorities in
foreign countries requesting them to afford facilities of safe
travel to the holder in their territories and to provide him
necessary assistance and protection. The presence abroad of
a passport holder and the manner in which he conducts
himself while there, the treatment meted out to him by
foreign Governments and authorities necessarily bring into
play the relations between India and the foreign countries
concerned. Government might have to protect his interests
abroad vis-a vis the foreign State and might also have to
arrange his repatriation to India at public expense, should
he become destitute or a public charge. For all these and
other reasons such as diplomatic and consular practice and
usage and international practice and usage, Government
had claimed an absolute discretion in the matter of issuance
of passports, though it had taken adequate precautions by
issuing suitable administrative instructions to ensure that
the power was not used in an arbitrary manner. The majority
decision of the Supreme Court in the case aforementioned
denied the Government any such absolute power though
minority upheld Government's view point. The majority
held inter alia that the right to travel abroad is a part of a
person's personal liberty of which he could not be deprived
except according to procedure established by law in terms of
Art. 21 of the Constitution and as there was no law
establishing such procedure, the Government had no right to
refuse a passport to any person who might have applied for
the same. The majority also held that Government's claim
for an absolute discretion in the matter of issuance of
passports would also be violative of Art. 14 of the
CWP No.4519 of 2008 6
Constitution. It thus became urgently necessary to regulate
the issuance of passports and travel documents by law. As
Parliament was not in session, an Ordinance, namely
Passports Ordinance, 1967 was promulgated for the purpose.
1