The Bombay High Court reaffirms that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental part of Article 21, protecting personal liberty, and directs authorities to prevent bureaucratic errors from obstructing passport renewals.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a judgment reinforcing the importance of personal liberty, the Bombay High Court recently emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court cautioned authorities against creating unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that can impede this basic freedom.
The Case of Sharad Khatu
The case involved 76-year-old Sharad Khatu, whose passport renewal application was rejected due to an incorrect police record indicating a pending criminal case from 1990. Despite Khatu providing official clarification from the police station and local court confirming that no case was pending, the passport authorities continued to reject his application.
As a result, Khatu was forced to approach the High Court to assert his right to travel and rectify the administrative error.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| CJI Gavai Dismisses Plea Seeking Criminal Contempt Against AG R. Venkataramani
Court Observations
During the hearing, the police confirmed that no criminal case was pending against Khatu. The bench, comprising Justices M S Sonak and Advait Sethna, cited the Supreme Court’s stance that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The court noted the significant inconvenience caused to Khatu, who lost “precious time” and missed the opportunity to visit his son and grandchildren in Dubai. Observing the broader implications of bureaucratic errors, the bench stated:
“Unnecessary bureaucratic impediments must not be created to frustrate this precious right.”
Directions Issued
The court directed the authorities to:
- Allow Khatu to submit a fresh passport application.
- Process and decide the application within two weeks.
- Immediately delete the incorrect entry from the police online portal to prevent further difficulties.
This decision not only resolved Khatu’s predicament but also reinforced the principle that administrative errors should not infringe upon fundamental rights.
