Delhi HC refused to hear Bhanu Tatak’s challenge against travel restrictions citing lack of jurisdiction. Court directed her to approach Gauhati High Court’s Arunachal Pradesh Bench.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to hear a petition filed by environmental activist and law student Bhanu Tatak against the government’s decision to stop her from travelling abroad.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard her plea and made it clear that the Delhi High Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with her case.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Tatak, argued strongly that the Immigration Department’s action to prevent her from travelling overseas was unlawful.
He said that this decision was
“against her fundamental rights and violates her freedom.”
On the other side, Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit represented the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and the Bureau of Immigration. He opposed the plea and raised the question of its maintainability.
According to him, Tatak is already facing several criminal cases in Arunachal Pradesh. He further told the court that
“a Look Out Circular (LOC) has been issued against her pursuant to a request made by the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Itanagar.”
After listening to both sides, the Court dismissed the plea. Justice Sharma directed the petitioner to take her case to the proper forum, stating that she should move the Arunachal Pradesh Bench of the Gauhati High Court instead of approaching the Delhi High Court.
Tatak, who hails from Arunachal Pradesh, is a law student and well-known activist associated with the anti-dam movements in the region.
She has been vocal against large hydropower projects, including the proposed 11,500 MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, which, once completed, will become the largest hydropower project in India.
Just last week, she was stopped at Delhi Airport when she attempted to board a flight to Dublin.
This case once again brings into focus the clash between the right to travel abroad, which is considered part of a citizen’s fundamental rights, and the government’s power to impose restrictions by issuing Look Out Circulars (LOCs) in cases where criminal proceedings are pending.
In Tatak’s case, while her lawyer argued that she is being unfairly targeted and her liberty is being curtailed, the government maintained that the LOC was validly issued due to pending cases in her home state.
By dismissing her petition, the Delhi High Court has clarified that jurisdiction is crucial and that the proper court to hear her grievance is the Gauhati High Court (Arunachal Pradesh Bench).
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on POSH
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
