Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Writ Petn. No. 230 of 1966.
Satwan Singh Sawhney, Petitioner
Versus
D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 30 of 1967.
Om Prakash Kapur, Petitioner
Versus
Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 230 of 1966 and 30 of 1967.
D/- 10-4-1967 and 24-4-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. J. Sorabjee, A. T. Rana, Advocates, M/s. J. R. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Petitioner and Intervener (In W. P. No. 230 of 1966); Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. J. C. Talwar, R. L. Kohli, Advocates. with him) for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 30 of 1967); Mr. Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General of India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, with them), for Respondents (In both Petitions).
W. P. No. 230 of 1966.
-held, expression in Art. 21 takes in right of locomotion and travel abroad; but right to move through territory of India is not covered by Art. 21 but by Art. 19 specifically.
-held, rule of law firstly protects a person against executive action if same is not backed by legislative authority. Secondly it protects against discrimination between persons if it is not based on just classification.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The right to travel abroad is considered an integral part of personal liberty under the constitutional framework, specifically under Article 21, which guarantees protection of personal liberty according to procedure established by law (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The possession of a passport is essential for international travel, as it functions as a document of identity, a request for protection, and a prima facie evidence of nationality. It also serves as a control mechanism over exit and entry from a country (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The issuance and refusal of passports are primarily executive functions, but such powers must be exercised within the bounds of constitutional rights, particularly equality before the law and non-discrimination under Article 14 (!) .
Arbitrary or discretionary exercise of power to deny or revoke passports without a legislative backing or procedural safeguards violates fundamental rights, especially the right to equality and personal liberty (!) .
The legal and international understanding of passports emphasizes their role as a request for protection and a travel document, not merely a privilege. Modern law recognizes the right to travel as a part of personal liberty, protected under constitutional provisions (!) (!) (!) .
The right to travel abroad is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution but is inferred as part of personal liberty, which can only be restricted through lawful procedures (!) (!) (!) .
The exercise of executive discretion in issuing or withholding passports must be based on lawful, non-discriminatory criteria, and any action taken without such basis can be challenged as a violation of constitutional rights (!) .
The government’s control over issuing passports and the conditions for travel are grounded in national and international conventions, emphasizing the importance of passports as a necessary condition for international movement (!) (!) .
The scope of personal liberty under the constitution includes the right to move freely, which encompasses the right to travel abroad, provided it is not restricted by law or due process (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework and constitutional principles affirm that individuals have a fundamental right to travel abroad, and any restriction or denial must be supported by law and applied fairly, respecting the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, CJI. : (On behalf of him self, Shelat, J. and Vaidialingam, J., D/-10-4-1967) : Satwant Singh Sawhney, the petitioner, is a citizen of India. He carries on the business of Importer, Exporter and Manufacturer of automobile parts and engineering goods in the name and style of Indi-European Trading Corporation. He also carries on another business in engineering goods in the name of "Sawhney Industries". For the purpose of his business it is necessary for the petitioner to travel abroad. From the year 1958 he was taking passports for visiting foreign countries in connection with his business. On December 8, 1966, he obtained a regular passport from the Government of India which is valid upto March 22, 1969. So too, on October 27, 1965 he obtained another passport which was valid upto March 22, 1967. On August 31, 1966 the Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, the 1st respondent herein, wrote to the petitioner calling upon him to return he said two passports, as the 3rd Respondent, the Union of India had decided to withdraw the passport facilities extended to the petitioner. So too, the 2nd respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Bombay, wrote to the petitioner a letter, dated September 24, 1966, calling upon him to surrender the said two passports immediately to the Government and intimating him that in default action would be taken against him. Though the petitioner wrote letters to the respondents requesting them to reconsider their decision, he did not receive any reply from them. The petitioner alleging that the said action of the respondents infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 21and 14 of the Constitution, filed the writ petition in this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or writs directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the said decision contained in the said two letters, to forbear from taking any steps or proceedings in the enforcement of the said decision and to forbear from depriving the petitioner of the said two passports and his passport facilities.
2. The respondents contested the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner s fundamental right had not been infringed, that the petitioner contravened the conditions of import licence obtained by him, that investigations were going on against him in relation to offences under the Export and Import Control Act and that the passport authorities were satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to continue to have the passports he was likely to leave India and not return to face a trial before a Court of law and that, therefore, his passports were impounded. Further it was alleged that the passport was a document which was issued to a person at the pleasure of the President in exercise of his political function and was a political document, and the refusal to grant a passport could not be a subject of review in a Court of law. For the same reason it was alleged that the petitioner had no right to have the passports issued to him.
3. It would be convenient at the outset to record briefly, the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.
4. The arguments of Mr. Sorabji, learned counsel for the petitioner, may be summarized thus : The right to leave India and travel outside India and return to India is part of personal liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. (2) Refusal to give a passport or withdrawal of one given amounts to deprivation of personal liberty inasmuch as, (a) it is not practically possible for a citizen to leave India or travel abroad or to return to India without a passport, (b) instructions are issued to shipping and air travel companies not to take passengers on board without passport, (c) under the Indian Passport Act re-entering India without Passport is penalized. (3) The deprivation of personal liberty is not in accordance with the procedure established by
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
