SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 398

High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Priya Parameswaran Pillai – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & Others – Respondent
WP(C) No. 774 of 2015
Decided On : 12-03-2015

Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Indira Jaising, Sr. Advocate with Vrinda Grover, Amrita Chakravorty, Bhavook Chauhan, Sonakshi Malhan, Ratna Appanendra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sanjay Jain, ASG with Neeraj Jain, Anirudh Shukla, Advocates.

The issuance of a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) against an individual must be based on due authority of law and the grounds for issuing such LOC must be specified in the relevant legislation or guidelines. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and can only be restricted by a duly enacted law which must pass the test of reasonable restrictions as contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

The court held that the issuance of a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) against the petitioner, a civil rights activist, was illegal and violative of her fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court found that the LOC was issued without due authority of law and that the grounds set out in the 2010 Office Memorandum (O.M.) for issuing LOCs were not applicable in this case. The court also held that the petitioner's intended meeting with British Parliamentarians to discuss the rights of tribal communities and environmental issues did not constitute an anti-national activity and could not be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Ms. Pillai, a civil rights activist, was detained at the airport while attempting to travel to the United Kingdom to meet with British Parliamentarians to discuss the rights of tribal communities and environmental issues. The detention was based on a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) issued against her by the Bureau of Immigration. The petitioner challenged the legality of the LOC and the detention, arguing that they violated her fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issuance of the LOC against the petitioner was illegal and violative of her fundamental rights. The court held that the LOC was issued without due authority of law and that the grounds set out in the 2010 O.M. for issuing LOCs were not applicable in this case. The court also held that the petitioner's intended meeting with British Parliamentarians to discuss the rights of tribal communities and environmental issues did not constitute an anti-national activity and could not be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the issuance of the LOC against the petitioner was legal and justified. 2. Whether the detention of the petitioner at the airport was violative of her fundamental rights. 3. Whether the petitioner's intended meeting with British Parliamentarians constituted an anti-national activity and could be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issuance of the LOC against the petitioner was illegal and violative of her fundamental rights. The court found that the LOC was issued without due authority of law and that the grounds set out in the 2010 O.M. for issuing LOCs were not applicable in this case. The court also held that the petitioner's intended meeting with British Parliamentarians to discuss the rights of tribal communities and environmental issues did not constitute an anti-national activity and could not be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the LOC issued against the petitioner and directed the respondents to expunge the endorsement “off-load” made on her passport and to remove her name from the “data base” maintained by them pertaining to individuals who are not allowed to leave the country.

Judgment

WP(C) 774/2015 & CM No.1352/2015 (interim relief)

PREFATORY FACTS

1. Every once in a while, citizens going about their usual and ordinary business, get entangled with the State apparatus; sometimes for good reason and at times unjustifiably so. In such a situation, an aggrieved citizen’s remedy, quite naturally, is to approach the courts of law for appropriate relief. These remedies at most times are financially debilitating and not within the means of every aggrieved party.

1.1 The instant matter is a case in point. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Ms. Pillai) chose to travel to the United Kingdom, in the early hours of the morning of 11.01.2015, by an Air India flight bearing no.AI-115. She was, however, stopped at the immigration for reasons that I shall, shortly, advert to in the course of my discussion.

1.2 Suffice it to state (at this stage), the concerned immigration officer proceeded to endorse, Ms. Pillai’s passport with an annotation “off load”. Having not been supplied with any reasons, an indignant Ms. Pillai shot off (in my view quite correctly as would be evident from facts delineated hereafter) a letter of even date i.e., 11.01.2015 to the Secretary, Government of India (GOI), Ministry of Home Affairs seeking to know the reasons which had impelled the authorities concerned to detain her at the airport. Though there was no official response to her communication dated 11.01.2015, the media was rife with reports, that a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) had been issued qua her. Resultantly, Ms Pillai dispatched yet another letter dated 12.01.2015 to the same officer, seeking to know, inter alia, as to whether, what was being bandied about, in the press, was factually correct.

1.3 Ms. Pillai’s communications received no response.

2. Being aggrieved, Ms. Pillai has moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2.1 The broad plank of her challenge is pivoted on the assertion that these actions of the respondents are violative of her fundamental rights. Article 19(1) (a), 19(1) (g) and 21 have been invoked by Ms. Pillai, to assail the actions of the respondents, which she categorises, if one were to sum her submissions, as egregiously illegal.

3. Ms. Pillai’s curriculum vitae, broadly, reads as follows:- She avers that she is a civil rights activist, who works in public spaces. Her core area of work relates to environmental issues. She is a lawyer by profession; and is currently employed with Greenpeace India Society, as a Policy Officer.

4. It appears of late she has been working in Mahan in the Singrauli Coal belt, in the State of Madhya

Pradesh. As an activist working in Mahan, it appears, she has associated herself with the local tribal communities, which according to her, seek to resist the possibility of a coal mine being operated in the area. The opposition, evidently, albeit non-violent, appears to be focussed against the proponent of the proposal; a company by the name of Mahan Coal Ltd, which seeks to open a coal mine in the concerned area.

4.1 Mahan Coal Ltd., apparently, is a joint venture company, formed and incorporated at the behest of two entities by the name of Hindalco and ESSAR Power Ltd. It is averred that ESSAR Power Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of ESSAR Energy; a company incorporated and registered in United Kingdom (in short, U.K.). It is claimed that till very recently, ESSAR Energy, was also listed on the London Stock Exchange.

4.2 It is asserted that Mahan, is home to the oldest and largest surviving Sal forest in Asia. The assertion made in the writ petition is that opening of a mine in Mahan had the potentiality of displacing the forest / tribal communities, which in turn, could impact lives of thousands of people who, depend on forest produce. There is also an assertion that such an activity could, also degrade, the existing wild life found in the area and lead to water and air pollution in the region.

4.3 It is to talk on these aspects with British Parliamentarians t












































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top