Personal liberty includes foreign travel, and passport restrictions need lawful authority and constitutional equality compliance.

Personal liberty under Article 21 was treated as wide enough to include freedom of locomotion and travel abroad, and any restriction on that right had to be backed by procedure established by law. The absence of enacted statutory authority for curtailing foreign travel was treated as decisive, so executive interference without law was impermissible. Refusal to issue or withdrawal of passport facilities on unguided executive discretion was also held arbitrary and discriminatory, because action affecting a person prejudicially must rest on legal authority and comply with equality guarantees under Article 14. The impugned withdrawal of passport facilities was set aside and restoration directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether refusal to issue or withdraw a passport without statutory authority offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 was held to have a wide content and to include the freedom of locomotion and travel abroad, subject to deprivation only by procedure established by law. The absence of any enacted law authorising restriction or deprivation of that right was treated as decisive. The contrary view that foreign travel lay outside Article 21 was rejected.

Conclusion: The right to travel abroad is included in personal liberty under Article 21, and it cannot be curtailed except by procedure established by law.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to issue or withdraw a passport without statutory authority offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: An unguided executive discretion to grant or withhold passports was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court reasoned that executive action affecting a person prejudicially must rest on legal authority and must not permit unequal treatment based on uncanalised selection by the executive. The passport refusal therefore violated equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Conclusion: The refusal to issue or continue the passport facilities offended Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decision withdrawing the passport facilities was set aside and a writ of mandamus was issued directing restoration of the passports and restraint against enforcement of the withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad, and any executive refusal or withdrawal of a passport must be supported by law and conform to constitutional equality guarantees.

---