A Full
Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Francis Manjooram vs. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, reported in AIR 1966 Ker. 20 (FB), held that the expression personal liberty took in the right to travel.
23. In the
case of Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi,reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836, the Supreme Court held that right to travel abroad is fundamental right. In absence of law regulating or depriving a person of such right, refusal to give passport or withdrawal of one given violates Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The expression personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution takes in the right of locomotion and to travel aboard, but the right to move throughout the territories of India is not covered by it inasmuch as it is specially provided in Article 19. Under Article 21, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law.From the
reasons mentioned in the aforesaid case, it follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to the procedure established by law. The law means 'enacted law' or 'State law'. In absence of any such 'enacted law' or State law', we hold that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deprive the defendants, the respondents herein, of their right to go abroad.1
Gujarat High Court
State vs Prafulchandra on 9 February, 2011
