The central legal point established is that the requirement for political clearance for judges' private visits abroad is unnecessary and is struck down.

ORDER

1. The substantive prayers made in the application are as follows:

"(a) Set aside and/or quash the notification/ office memorandum dated 13.07.2021 issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, Delhi;

(b) Set aside the communication dated 18.8.2021 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice;

(c) Stay the operation of the notification/ office memorandum dated 13.07.2021 issued by the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division, Delhi during the pendency of the present application. "

2. We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India.

3. The concern raised by the applicant i.e., the petitioner, who appears in person, is about the aspect embedded in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13.07.2021 [ hereafter referred to as the "O.M."] requiring the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to obtain political clearance for private visits abroad. Since the O.M. is not too expansive, the entire O.M. is extracted hereafter for the sake of convenience:

"Subject: Policy related to the issuance of Visa Support Notes Verbale by consular, Passport and Visa Division, Ministry of External Affairs (CPV Division, MEA)

This is to convey that after a comprehensive review of the extant policies on the issuance of Visa Support Notes Verbale undertaken by the Consular, Passport and Visa Division, Ministry of External Affairs (CPV) Division, MEA); the following has been decided with the approval of competent authorities.

2. In such cases, where Visa Support Notes Verbale are sought from the CPV Division, MEA by the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Judges of High Court of India, prior Political Clearance of the MEA is to be submitted for the intended private or official visits abroad. Political Clearance may be applied at https://www.epolcearance.gov. in/.

3. While forwarding requests for issuance of visa Support Notes Verbale to the CPV Division, MEA; the offices of the dignitaries may kindly be advised to submit appropriate Political Clearance for the intended visits, in both cases of private or official visits, along with the request for the Visa Support Notes Verable.

4. This may be circulated appropriately.

Sd/-

(Name of officer)

Joint Secretary "

4. The sum and substance of what has been articulated in the above-captioned application, is that requiring judges of Constitutional Courts i.e., the Supreme Court and the High Courts to seek political clearance qua private visits to foreign countries, infringes not only their right of privacy, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) andAnr. v Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 SCC1 but also, in a sense, degrades and/or diminishes the high office that they hold.

4.1. We may note that, on 15.02.2011, guidelines had been issued concerning foreign visits by judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts [hereafter referred to as "2011 guidelines"].

4.2. This court, via judgment dated 25.05.2012, had issued a slew of directions concerning the 2011 guidelines. However, insofar as paragraph 9(a) of the 2011 guidelines was concerned, the court had, at that juncture, not deemed it fit to pass any directions vis-a-vis the said paragraph, as it had dispensed with the requirement of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to obtain political clearance for private foreign visits. For the sake of convenience, the judgment dated 25.05.2012 is set forth hereafter :

" C.M.No.7809/2011

1. Guidelines issued under cover of letter dated February 15, 2011 by Sh. V.K. Gupta, Under Secretary to the Government of India, on the subject of foreign visits by the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts has been questioned vide CM.No.7809/2011, in so far para 8(a) and (b), paras 9(a), (b) (c) and (e) and para 10 are concerned.

2. The said paragraphs pertain to private visits by the Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to foreign countries.

3. Having considered the matter keeping in view the constitutional