https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286454 Right to travel abroad was treated as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and, where travel is integral to expression, its curtailment may also affect Article 19(1)(a). The court declined to give a final standalone ruling on whether the 2010 Office Memorandum itself was "law" under Article 13(3)(a), but held that the lookout circular lacked lawful justification because there was no material showing any imminent threat to sovereignty, integrity or security. It further rejected a broad reading of "anti-national elements" that would capture peaceful criticism or advocacy. The consequential airport detention and off-load endorsement were therefore held illegal and violative of fundamental rights, while compensation was refused. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:55:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286454 Right to travel abroad was treated as part of personal liberty under Article 21 and, where travel is integral to expression, its curtailment may also affect Article 19(1)(a). The court declined to give a final standalone ruling on whether the 2010 Office Memorandum itself was "law" under Article 13(3)(a), but held that the lookout circular lacked lawful justification because there was no material showing any imminent threat to sovereignty, integrity or security. It further rejected a broad reading of "anti-national elements" that would capture peaceful criticism or advocacy. The consequential airport detention and off-load endorsement were therefore held illegal and violative of fundamental rights, while compensation was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286454