2012 (7) TMI 1161 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner's rights under Indian and International law.
3. Restrictions on the movement of foreigners in India.

Summary:

1. Validity of Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner:
The petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, sought the removal of the LOC issued against him, which hindered his smooth departure and arrival at Chennai Airport. The respondents argued that the petitioner had committed visa violations by overstaying and using a tourist visa for studies. The LOC was issued due to these violations and his involvement in serious criminal cases. The court noted that LOCs are issued to trace absconding criminals and monitor the entry or exit of persons required by law enforcement authorities. The statutory backing for LOC issuance is found in the Passport Act, 1967, and Section 41 of Cr. P.C.

2. Petitioner's rights under Indian and International law:
The petitioner contended that the LOC violated his human rights, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). However, the court highlighted that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which includes the right to move freely, applies only to Indian citizens and not to foreigners. The Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt., Presidency Jail, Calcutta, and State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, held that foreigners do not have the same rights as Indian citizens under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e). The court also referenced the judgment in Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that even the right to privacy for Indian citizens is not absolute.

3. Restrictions on the movement of foreigners in India:
The court noted that the Central Government has the authority to impose restrictions on the movement and residence of foreigners in India u/s 11 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. The petitioner, being a foreigner, is subject to these restrictions. The court concluded that the LOC issued against the petitioner was a form of surveillance by the government and did not violate his rights under Indian law or international conventions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not make a case for the withdrawal of the LOC. The petitioner's rights as a foreigner are subject to the restrictions imposed by the Central Government, and the LOC was justified based on his past visa violations and criminal involvement. The court emphasized that the LOC serves as a necessary measure for law enforcement and public order.