9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1372 - HC - Indian LawsPrevention from travelling outside the country - violation of fundamental rights or not - Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution? And if so, could the violation of that right impact the freedom of speech and expression of a citizen protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? - HELD THAT - It cannot be argued that the right to travel abroad is not a fundamental right. It is, as a matter of fact, a second generation right which flows from the right to life and personal liberty conferred on the citizens, under Article 21, which can be taken away only by procedure, as established in law. While, it may be true that the right to go abroad is not included the right to freedom of speech and expression - in some cases, the curtailment of right to travel abroad could impact, a citizen's right of free speech and expression. Whether the 2010 O.M. would constitute a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution? - Whether the issuance of an LOC qua Ms Pillai was justified in the given facts and circumstances? - Whether the consequent detention of Ms Pillai on 11.01.2015, at the airport, resulted in violation of her fundamental right, under Article 21, and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? - HELD THAT - There is nothing on record to show that Ms Pillai intended to do anything more than this. The argument of the respondents that Greenpeace U.K. and Greenpeace International were fomenting protests in the country with respect to various public projects, especially, in the field of thermal and nuclear power generation, is not backed with actionable material. The record would show that while the respondents may have regulated the inflow of funds to Greenpeace International, by having it put in the prior approval category, there is no such directive issued either qua Greenpeace U.K., or Greenpeace India. Ms Pillai, is admittedly, employed with Greenpeace India - The only violation which is brought to fore, in the counter affidavit, qua Greenpeace India, is one concerning certain notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities; which have clearly, some revenue implications. However, the alleged violation of tax laws, which I am informed is contested, would not, in my opinion by itself, be demonstrative of the fact that the activities carried out by Greenpeace India, via its employees, agents and servants, is inimical to the economic interest of the country. While there is no gainsaying that economic security, as against physical security of a nation in today's time and space, is equally vital, if not more - nothing, which is placed before me, in the form of affidavit, or is found in the record, which was shown to me in court, would have me, presently, come to a conclusion that the activities of Ms Pillai, in particular, or those of the organizations, with which she is associated, are activities, which have the potentiality of degrading the economic interest of the country. The core aspect of democracy is the freedom of an individual to be able to freely operate, within the framework of the laws enacted by the Parliament. The individual should be able to order his or her life any way he or she pleases, as long as it is not violative of the law or constitutes an infraction of any order or direction of a duly constituted court, tribunal or any statutory authority for that matter. Amongst the varied freedoms conferred on an individual (i.e., the citizen), is the right of free speech and expression, which necessarily includes the right to criticise and dissent. There was no basis for the respondents to issue an LOC qua the petitioner. That being so, the decision taken to detain the petitioner at the airport on 11.01.2015, in my opinion, was illegal being violative of the Ms Pillai's right under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 13.9 The actions of the respondents do not fall within the ambit of reasonable restriction, as articulated in Clause (2) of Article 19. Clause (2) of Article 19 protects a law which imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of rights conferred upon a citizen under Article 19(1)(a), in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the 2010 O.M. would constitute a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the issuance of an LOC (Look-Out Circular) qua the petitioner was justified in the given facts and circumstances? 4. Whether the consequent detention of the petitioner at the airport resulted in violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? Issue-wise Analysis: Issue No. (I): The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. The right to travel abroad is a part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21, and any deprivation of this right must be according to the procedure established by law. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad could impact the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Issue No. (II): The 2010 O.M. does not constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. The power to issue an LOC must be rooted in enacted law, such as the provisions of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. The court noted that the executive's power to issue an LOC, as claimed by the respondents, is not backed by any statutory enactment and thus cannot be considered valid law under Article 21. Issue No. (III): The issuance of an LOC against the petitioner was not justified. The respondents' claim that the petitioner intended to testify before a British Parliamentary Committee, which would negatively impact India's image, was not substantiated by any actionable material. The court found that the petitioner's intended interaction with British Parliamentarians on environmental issues in the Mahan coal block area did not constitute anti-national activities. The court held that the respondents' actions were based on an erroneous interpretation of the 2010 O.M. and lacked any legal basis. Issue No. (IV): The detention of the petitioner at the airport violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the respondents' actions did not fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions as articulated in Clause (2) of Article 19. The court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to propagate one's views, and any restriction on this right must be reasonable and backed by law. Conclusion: The court quashed the LOC issued against the petitioner and ordered the expunging of the "off-load" endorsement on her passport. The court also directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the database of individuals not allowed to leave the country. The petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) were upheld, and the actions of the respondents were deemed illegal and unconstitutional. The court declined the prayer for compensation but allowed the petitioner to seek civil remedies for damages.
|
