Whether right to travel can be denied to valid T2 and T3 visa holder?

Kerala High Court: In a recent case where respondent authorities illegally seized the passport of the dependants (wife and children) of victim of human trafficking in USA and denied them to travel to America, a bench of A.V.R. Pillai J, held that the denial of the same is not only violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners but also detrimental to the very concept of right, duties and obligations in matrimonial living of spouses.

The counsel for the petitioner M.P. Ramnath contended that when the petitioners are having due visas granted by the Government of USA and when there is nothing illegal about the petitioners duly traveling to USA to join their husband /father (victim of human trafficking in USA), it is absolutely illegal and baseless to restrain the petitioners to travel to USA. The counsel for the respondent N. Nagaresh contended that if the petitioners are permitted to go abroad, it would be against the provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 2000 passed by USA.

The Court observed that the Government of USA has granted proper visa to the petitioners to join their husband/father, and that the petitioners are not involved in any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation and are not the violators of the laws/ norms/ sovereignty and integrity of the country. The Court noted that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves eligibility for grant of T-visa to a victim of severe form of trafficking and dependents only after detailed procedures, verification, adjudication and evaluation of independent evidence.

The Court found that in the instant case there is no violation of the provisions of Passport Act, 1967, and accordingly held that restraint of petitioners holding a valid T2 and T3 visa from traveling abroad to join husband/father who is duly employed therein is not only violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners but also detrimental to psychological growth and development of the spouse and children. The Court directed the respondents to permit and enable the petitioners to travel to USA.

A trafficking visa (T-visa) is a type of visa allowing certain victims of human trafficking and immediate family members to remain and work temporarily in the United States, if they agree to assist law enforcement in testifying against the perpetrators.
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

      WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015
                    WP(C).No. 33046 of 2014 (E)
                
PETITIONERS:


            MARY REDI KOTTUNKAL JOY, 
RESPONDENTS:

           THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER (PRO)
       BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
       



           

Print Page

Whether a person can be deprived of right to travel in absence of enacted law?

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

Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker

Print Page