Telangana High Court
Y S Chowdary vs Bureau Of Immigration on 11 September, 2023
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.24657 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for
respondent No.1 and 3 and learned Special Public
Prosecutor for CBI appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the
prayer as follows:
"To issue order writ or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
a. Permit the petitioner to travel to USA, Singapore,
Dubai, Europe and U.K from 17.09.2023 to
19.01.2024."
3. The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and
in particular paragraph No.4 of the said counter
affidavit reads as under:
"It is submitted that Petitioner's request for
travelling abroad (USA, Singapore, Dubai, Europe and
UK) for 4 months (i.e. from 17.09.2023 to 19.01.2024)
may not be considered by this Hon'ble Court as the case
pertains to financial fraud and larger public interest is
involved. The petitioner may evade process of justice in
India and this must not be permitted in the interest of
2 WP_24657_2023
SN,J
justice. It will be very difficult to bring him back to the
country. In the instant petition, the petitioner seeks
permission to visit USA, Singapore, Dubai, Europe and
UK to explore opportunities in health care and
possibilities of technological collaboration and transfer.
The petitioner has asserted many times that he has no
involvement in any business, after becoming Member of
Parliament in 2010. Therefore the reasons cited for the
instant foreign visit cannot be accepted."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
Court on earlier occasion vide order dated 27.04.2023 in
W.P.No.12284 of 2023 and order dated 06.06.2023 in
W.P.No.13783 of 2023 passed orders in favour of the
petitioner and permitted the petitioner to travel abroad.
5. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013
(15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of
Delhi at para 13 observed as under:
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his
guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is
entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right
to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India."
In the present case petitioner has not been
arrayed as accused in FIR even as on date nor it is
stated so in the counter filed by respondent No.2-CBI.
3 WP_24657_2023
SN,J
6. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v Union of India
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can
be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a
law enabling the State to do so and such law contains
fair, reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said
judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go
abroad unless there is a law made by the State
prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the
deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such
procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply
with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament
enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right
to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the
Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the
circumstances under which a passport may be issued or
refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a
procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that
is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the
prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must
the procedure comply with any particular requirements?
Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned
Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly
stated that it was not possible for him to contend that
any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or
unjust may be prescribed by the law.
4 WP_24657_2023
SN,J
Therefore, such a right to travel abroad
cannot be deprived except by just, fair and
reasonable procedure.
7. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its
judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC online
SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India
(UOI) and others it is observed at para 5 as under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human
right for it nourishes independent and self-determining
creative character of the individual, not only by
extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending
the scope of his experience. The right also extends to
private life; marriage, family and friendship which are
the basic humanities which can be affected through
refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a
genuine human right."
8. Referring to the said principle and also the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in several other
judgments, considering the guidelines issued by the
Union of India from time to time, the Division Bench of
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Noor Paul Vs. Union of India reported in 2022 SCC
online P & H 1176 held that a right to travel abroad
cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable
procedure.
5 WP_24657_2023
SN,J
9. This Court opines that freedom to go abroad has
much social value and represents the basic human right
of great significance. It is settled law that the right to
travel is a part of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
1950.
10. Taking into consideration the fact that the case
registered against the petitioner pertains to the year
2016 and the fact that till as on date no charge sheet
has been filed and the petitioner has not been arrayed
as accused in FIR even as on today, and the law laid
down by the Apex Court in various judgments (1)
Satwant Singh Sawhney v D.Ramarathnam reported in
1967 (2) SCR 521 para 21 (2) Menaka Gandhi v Union
of India reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248 para 193, (3)
Judgment dated 09.04.2019, in Satish Chandra Verma v
Union of India (UOI) reported in (2019) SCC on line SC
2048 Para 5, (4) Judgment of the Apex Court in a
judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit
Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi, para 13 and (5) The
Judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union of India
6 WP_24657_2023
SN,J
reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176, and in view of
the same, this Court is inclined to grant permission to
the petitioner to travel abroad from 17.09.2023 to
19.01.2024.
11. The petitioner shall submit an undertaking with
respondent No.2 stating that he will inform about his
travel details including his mobile phone, Email ID etc,
and also his departure and arrival. He shall be available
with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of further
investigation, if any, and he shall cooperate with the
Investigating Officer in the said crime. In the aforesaid
undertaking he has to specifically mention that he will
return on or before 19.01.2024 and report to
respondent No.2.
12. With the above observations, this writ petition is
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 11.09.2023
SU
