LexSATWANT SINGH SAWHNEY versus D. RAMARATHNAM, ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E ' G H SATWANT SINGH SAWHNEY v. D. RAMARATIINAM, ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER;. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELm AND OTHERS April 10, 1967 [K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, R. S. BACHAWAT, J, M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21-Whether right to travel abroad and to a passport part of personal liberty within the meanln1 of A.rt, 21-ln the absence of any law whether exercise of executive d/scre. tion ·to issue or refuse passport discriminatory. The petitioner carried on the business of import, expart and the manu· facture of automobile parts and in connection with his business it was necessary for him to travel abroad. For this pur} ;e he was holdin11 two valid passports when on August 31, 1966 and on September 24, 1966 the first and the second respondents, bein11 the Assistant Passport 011icer at New Delhi and the Rejlional Passport 01licer at Bombay respectively wrote to the petitioner callini: upon him to surrender the two passports as the Central Government had decided to withdraw the passport facili- ties extended to him. The petitioner filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution alleging that the respondent's action infringed his fundamental rights under Art. 21 and 14 of the Constitution and prayed for a writ of nuindamus di'recting the respondents to withdraw and cancel the decision contained in the two letters. It was contended, inter al/a, on behalf of the petitioner that the right to leave India and travel outside India and return to India is part of per- sonal liberty illaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution; 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 by the Central Government not to Ulke passengers on board without a passport: ( c) under the Indian Passport Act, re-<lntering India without a P!"'Sport is penalized. The deprivation of personal liberty in the refusal or impounding of a passport is not in accordance with any procedure !"'tablished by. law within the meaning of Art. 21, as admittedly there is no law placing any restrictions on the citizens of the country to travel abr~ad. Furthermo:e. the unfettered discretion given to the respondents to iss~e ,or not to issue a passport to a person offends Art. 14 of the ConstltuUon. The respOJ!den!3 contested the petition mainly on the JllOunds that no fundamental nght of the petitioner had been infringed that the petitioner had ~ontr~v"'!ed the cond.itions of an import licenc~ obtained by him that investigations were going on against him in relation to offences unde; the Exl'!'rt and Import Control Act, and that the passport authorities were satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to continue to have the fa"ports, he was likely to leave India and not return to face a trial be- ore a court of la"'. and that therefore it was necessary to impound his p~sport. ~urthe' 1t was contended that the passport was a document wf "I,~ was 1 .ti~su 1 edf to ~ person at the pleasure of the President in exercise o is po 1 1ca unction and was a political document, and the refu'tl 526 SUPllBMB COUllT RBPORTS (1967] 3 S.C.R to grant a passport could not be a subject of review in a court of law. :For the same reason it was contended that the petitioner had no right to bave the passpom issued to him. HELD: (per Subba Rao, C.1., Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.), A \Hit of mandamus must issue to the respondent to withdraw and cancel the decision contained in their letters dated Augir.;t 31, 1966 and September 20, 1966. A person living in India has a fundamental right to travel abroad under Art. 21 of the Constitution and canriot be denied a passport be- ·ca~ factually, a pass~rt rs a necessary condition for travel eh road and lhe uovernment, by wtthholdin& the passport, can effectively deprive him Of his right. (528 H; 530 G; 540 BJ "Liberty" in our Constitution bears the same comprehensive meaning as is given to the expression "liberty" by the Sth and 14th Amendmenta to the U.S. Comtitution .and the expression "personal liberty" in Art. 21 only excludes the ingredients of liberty ensbrindd in Art. 19 of the Constitution. In other words, the expression "personal liberty"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.