Travel restrictions without due process violate fundamental rights under Article 21 constitutional principles

The HC held that obstructing petitioner's foreign travel without following due process violated Article 21 principles established in Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi cases. The court directed respondents to serve a copy of the Look Out Circular with reasons to petitioner and provide hearing opportunity within two weeks. Respondents must permit travel abroad unless petitioner's immediate presence is required for investigation, or secure undertaking for appearance when directed. Writ petition disposed of with directions ensuring procedural fairness in travel restrictions.

---

---

Issues:
Petition challenging obstruction from traveling abroad, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Look Out Circular (LOC) issuance, absence of reasons for LOC, principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the obstruction by respondents No. 2 and 3 from traveling abroad, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of constitutional rights. The petitioner, a retired employee, was accused in a case registered by CBI for alleged offenses under various sections. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and had cooperated with the investigation. However, while attempting to travel to the USA to visit her daughter, she was stopped at the airport without being provided with any valid reason or notice, leading to the petition being filed citing violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice.

The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued against the petitioner to prevent her from leaving India due to ongoing investigations and the possibility of her avoiding the legal process. The petitioner's possession of a visa allowing a long stay in the USA raised concerns about her return to India and potential hindrance to the investigation process. The CBI contended that the petitioner's failure to inform about her travel plans indicated malicious intent to evade the investigation, justifying the LOC issuance.

The Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent highlighted the legal basis for the action taken based on the LOC issued by the CBI, emphasizing the adherence to guidelines and the responsibility of the originating agency. The petitioner, being Accused No. 2 in the FIR, was subject to certain directions under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., but no specific requirement to inform the Investigating Officer before traveling abroad was mentioned. The petitioner's rights were upheld based on a judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for LOC, a copy of the LOC to the subject, and post-decisional hearing, as outlined in the Constitution.

The judgment considered the petitioner's constitutional rights, citing previous Supreme Court decisions on the right to travel abroad falling under personal liberty. In line with these principles, the court directed the 2nd respondent to serve a copy of the LOC, provide reasons for its issuance, and grant the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing within two weeks. The petitioner was permitted to travel abroad unless her immediate presence for investigation was required or by providing an undertaking to appear as directed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the importance of fair and just procedures in such cases.

---