Right to travel abroad upheld as fundamental right; LOC quashed, travel restrictions removed.

The court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that any deprivation must follow due process. The 2010 O.M. was deemed not to constitute "law" under Article 13(3)(a). The issuance of the LOC against the petitioner was unjustified, and her detention at the airport violated her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). The court quashed the LOC, ordered removal of travel restrictions, and declared the respondents' actions illegal and unconstitutional, allowing the petitioner to pursue civil remedies for damages.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the ConstitutionRs.
2. Whether the 2010 O.M. would constitute a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the ConstitutionRs.
3. Whether the issuance of an LOC (Look-Out Circular) qua the petitioner was justified in the given facts and circumstancesRs.
4. Whether the consequent detention of the petitioner at the airport resulted in violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) of the ConstitutionRs.

Issue-wise Analysis:

Issue No. (I):
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. The right to travel abroad is a part of the "personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21, and any deprivation of this right must be according to the procedure established by law. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad could impact the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Issue No. (II):
The 2010 O.M. does not constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. The power to issue an LOC must be rooted in enacted law, such as the provisions of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. The court noted that the executive's power to issue an LOC, as claimed by the respondents, is not backed by any statutory enactment and thus cannot be considered valid law under Article 21.

Issue No. (III):
The issuance of an LOC against the petitioner was not justified. The respondents' claim that the petitioner intended to testify before a British Parliamentary Committee, which would negatively impact India's image, was not substantiated by any actionable material. The court found that the petitioner's intended interaction with British Parliamentarians on environmental issues in the Mahan coal block area did not constitute anti-national activities. The court held that the respondents' actions were based on an erroneous interpretation of the 2010 O.M. and lacked any legal basis.

Issue No. (IV):
The detention of the petitioner at the airport violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the respondents' actions did not fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions as articulated in Clause (2) of Article 19. The court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to propagate one's views, and any restriction on this right must be reasonable and backed by law.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the LOC issued against the petitioner and ordered the expunging of the "off-load" endorsement on her passport. The court also directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the database of individuals not allowed to leave the country. The petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) were upheld, and the actions of the respondents were deemed illegal and unconstitutional. The court declined the prayer for compensation but allowed the petitioner to seek civil remedies for damages.

---