Passport – Delhi High Court Upholds Travel as Fundamental Right
Passport – The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that an individual’s right to possess a passport and travel abroad forms an essential part of personal liberty protected under the Constitution of India. The ruling came while the court was examining a challenge to the Union government’s decision to impound a businessman’s passport.
Court Sets Aside Centre’s Decision
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment while hearing a petition filed by Yogesh Raheja, a former director of Raheja Developers. Raheja had approached the court after authorities decided to impound his passport, citing his alleged failure to disclose the pendency of a First Information Report (FIR) against him when he applied for renewal.
The Centre had argued that non-disclosure of the FIR justified the action taken under the provisions of the Passports Act. However, the court found that the decision required closer scrutiny in light of constitutional safeguards.
Passport Linked to Personal Liberty
In its detailed order, the bench underscored that the right to travel abroad and to hold a passport is deeply connected to the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that any move by the state that affects such a right cannot be arbitrary or mechanical.
According to the judgment, actions that restrict a person’s ability to travel must meet the standard of reasonableness. Authorities are also required to adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness, transparency and an opportunity for the affected individual to present their case.
The court observed that personal liberty is not a narrow concept and includes various freedoms necessary for an individual’s autonomy and dignity. Therefore, any administrative order curtailing these freedoms must be legally sound and procedurally fair.
Emphasis on Natural Justice
Justice Kaurav made it clear that when a constitutional right is involved, procedural safeguards assume greater importance. The bench stressed that before taking any action that impacts a passport holder’s rights, authorities must provide adequate reasons and follow due process.
The court pointed out that compliance with natural justice principles is not a mere formality. It is a substantive requirement designed to prevent misuse of power and to protect citizens from unjust administrative decisions.
By setting aside the impounding order, the High Court reinforced the need for government agencies to act within constitutional boundaries. The ruling sends a clear message that executive powers related to passport regulation must be exercised carefully and fairly.
Background of the Case
Yogesh Raheja had sought renewal of his passport. During the process, it was alleged that he did not disclose the existence of an FIR registered against him. Based on this omission, authorities decided to impound his passport.
Challenging the decision, Raheja argued that the action was disproportionate and violated his fundamental rights. The High Court examined whether the non-disclosure automatically justified impounding the passport or whether authorities were required to assess the circumstances in a more balanced manner.
After reviewing the matter, the court concluded that the impugned action did not meet the constitutional threshold required when personal liberty is at stake.
Wider Constitutional Significance
Legal experts note that the judgment reiterates long-standing principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of Article 21. Over the years, courts have interpreted personal liberty broadly, covering rights that enable individuals to live with dignity and freedom.
By reaffirming that the right to travel abroad is part of this constitutional protection, the Delhi High Court has strengthened judicial oversight over administrative decisions concerning passports.
The ruling is expected to serve as a reference point in future cases where government action affects citizens’ mobility rights. It underscores that while the state has the authority to regulate passports in the interest of law and order, such authority must always operate within the framework of fairness and reasonableness.