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

1967 Supreme(SC) 131

M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. SUBBA RAO, J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, R. S. BACHAWAT
Satwant Singh Sawhney: Om Prakash Kapur – Appellant
Versus
D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi: Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi – Respondent


Advocates:
A.J.RANA, A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.R.AGRAWAL, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, J.C.TALVAR, J.R.GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, N.S.BINDRA

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

  1. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  2. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  3. 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 (!) .

  4. 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 (!) .

  5. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  6. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  7. 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 (!) .

  8. 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 (!) (!) .

  9. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

  10. 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 P



























































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top