Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.36 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Court On Its Own Motion vs State V. Gurnek Singh Etc. on 11 August, 2010
“11.A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the
accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in
4 See: Viraj Chetan Shah Vs UOI & Others [W.P.No.719 of 2020, dated
23.04.2024]; Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Assistant Director and Others [ILR 2010 (6) Del
706]; Rahul Dilip Shah Vs Union of India and another [2024 SCC OnLine Del 51]; Noor
Paul Vs Union of India and Others [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3408]; Abhayjeet Singh and
others Vs State of Rajasthanand others [Order of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in
S.B.Criminal Misc (Pet.) No.4572/2023, dated 18.10.2024].
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Deepen Arun Parekh vs State Bank Of India And 4 Ors on 9 March, 2023
26. While in Viraj Chetan Shah Vs Union of India and Others [W.P.No.
719 of 2020, dated 23.04.2024], the Bombay High Court had held that an
OM enabling the issuance of LOC is no more than an instruction without a
basis in law, even if it is presumed that it falls within the term procedure
established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution, yet to extend the
LOC periodically or slap it infinitely freezing the right of a person to travel
abroad will be excessive and arbitrary restriction on right to travel abroad.
As would be discussed later, a LOC is not without its utility, yet to freeze a
person’s right to travel unlimited by time will be a crime against the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed to an individual, as its effects transcend
beyond to violate right to grow and prosper, and hence right to life, and
consequently it breaches the values of human rights which the Constitution
aspires to uphold.
Rahul Dilip Shah vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 November, 2023
Indeed in Rahul Dilip Shah Vs Union of India &
another [2024 SCC OnLine Del 51], the Delhi High Court has held that LOC
cannot be extended endlessly as it seriously impedes the right of a person to
travel abroad and has the effect of abridging the rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. None can disagree with the said
proposition. This Court records its agreement with the said proposition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27/42
W.P.Nos.27686 & 28518 of 2024
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
In Satwant Singh Vs
D. Ramarathanam [AIR 1967 SC 1836], the Supreme Court drew generous
inspiration from the American jurisprudence where the US Supreme Court
had championed the right to travel abroad as a facet of liberty, and endorsed
it. This view finds regular re-enforcement from Maneka Gandhi Vs
Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] to Satish Chandra Verma Vs Union
of India [2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048].