Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Justice AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has observed that a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.

• The Bombay High Court gave this judgment in the case of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others.

What is the Background of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others?

• The Passport Authority had refused to renew the passports of Rajinder Kaur and her two sons on the ground that there was an objection raised by the woman's brother-in-law Gurvinder Chanan Singh Layal over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
• Layal had contended that the address belonged to a room standing in his name and there was an ongoing property dispute regarding the same.
• The court clarified that the right to the property can be protected by making it clear that mention of the address in the passports will not confer any title rights to the appellants.
• The court directed respondent no.2 to issue passports to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and the Passports Rules, without going into the merits of the objection as raised by respondent no.3 and held that the ground cited by the ‘Passport Authority’ for refusal is ‘arbitrary and without jurisdiction.’
• The court also observed that the ‘Passports Act’ does not contain any provision that enables refusal on the ground mentioned.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Since the petitioners have filed the present petition to enforce the fundamental right to travel abroad, which is guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and have challenged the said orders refusing renewal of passport to them as being without jurisdiction, the present petition clearly falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy.
• Needless to state that indication of the petitioners' address in the passport would not, by itself, confer on them any right in respect of the said property mentioned therein, and such inclusion would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent no.3 in other pending proceeding.

What is Article 21 of Indian Constitution?

• Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty:
  • No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
  • Article 21 provides two rights:
    • Right to life
    • Right to personal liberty
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’. This implies that this right has been provided against the State only.
  • State here includes not just the government, but also, government departments, local bodies, the legislatures, etc.
  • The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning.
• Case Laws:
  • AK Gopalan Case (1950): Until the 1950s, Article 21 had a bit of a narrow scope. In this case, the SC held that the expression ‘procedure established by law’, the Constitution has embodied the British concept of personal liberty rather than the American ‘due process’.
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case overturned the Gopalan case judgement. The idea of personal liberty in Article 21 has a wide scope including many rights, some of which are embodied under Article 19, thus giving them ‘additional protection’. The court also held that a law that comes under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements under Article 19 as well.
  • That means any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary.
• List of rights that Article 21:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance
  • Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials