Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam
Supreme Court of India · 10 April 1967 · 5 judges · 1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
The right to travel abroad is part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21, so it cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law, and unchannelled executive discretion to refuse or withdraw passports violates Article 14.
Facts
The petitioner, an importer, exporter and manufacturer of automobile parts, needed to travel abroad for business and held two valid passports. In August and September 1966 the Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi, and the Regional Passport Officer, Bombay, asked him to surrender them as the Union Government had decided to withdraw his passport facilities. The respondents said he had breached import licence conditions, was under investigation under the Export and Import Control Act and might not return to face trial, and that a passport was a political document issued at the President's pleasure and not open to judicial review. The petitioner sought mandamus under Article 32, alleging violation of Articles 21 and 14. There was no law regulating the issue of passports or travel abroad.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the right to travel abroad is part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21.
- Whether refusal or withdrawal of a passport, in the absence of any law, deprives a person of that right otherwise than by procedure established by law.
- Whether an unfettered executive discretion to issue or refuse passports violates Article 14.
What the Court held
- Given the passport rules, executive instructions to carriers and the requirements of foreign countries, a passport is factually a necessary condition for travel abroad, so withholding it can effectively deprive a person of the right to travel.
- 'Personal liberty' in Article 21 bears a comprehensive meaning and excludes only the attributes of liberty dealt with in Article 19. It takes in the right of locomotion and to travel abroad, while movement throughout India is covered by Article 19(1)(d).
- No person can be deprived of the right to travel abroad except according to procedure established by law, and no law had been made regulating or depriving persons of it.
- Whether or not the right to travel is part of Article 21, an unchannelled arbitrary executive discretion to issue or refuse passports violates Article 14. Calling the power political or diplomatic does not make it any less executive. Mandamus issued directing withdrawal of the decision, with costs.
Why it matters
The majority holds that the right to go abroad is within 'personal liberty' in Article 21 and that executive action affecting it must rest on law, preferring the Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts' view to that of the Delhi High Court. It also holds that unchannelled executive discretion over passports is discriminatory under Article 14. The dissent of Hidayatullah and Bachawat, JJ. would have limited the right of locomotion to India under Article 19.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that an Indian passport is factually a necessary condition for travel abroad and without it no person residing in India can travel outside India.”
“This decision is a clear authority for the position that "liberty" in our Constitution bears the sam comprehensive meaning as is given to the expression "liberty" by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the expression "personal liberty" in Ai.,. 21 only excludes the ingredients of "liberty" enshrined in Art. 19 of the Constitution. In other words, the expression "personal liberty" in Art. 21 takes in the, right of loco-motion and to travel abroad, but the right to move throughout the territories of India is not covered by it inasmuch as it is specially provided in. Art. 19.”
“For the reasons mentioned above we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that tinder Art. 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating ,or depriving persons of such a right.”
“While in the case of enacted law one knows where he stands, in the case of unchannelled arbitrary discretion, discrimination is writ large on the face of it. Such a discretion. patently violates the doctrine of equality, for the difference in the treatment of persons rests solely on the arbitrary selection of the executive.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)“This decision is a clear authority for the position that "liberty" in our Constitution bears the sam comprehensive meaning as is given to the expression "liberty" by the 5th” (page 13)
- Followed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India
- Case
- Writ Petition Nos. 230 of 1966 and 30 of 1967
- Decided
- 10 April 1967
- Bench
- K. Subba Rao (CJ), M. Hidayatullah, R.S. Bachawat, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidialingam
- Opinions
- Majority 3:2. Judgment of Subba Rao, C.J., Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ. delivered by Subba Rao, C.J.; Hidayatullah, J. delivered the dissenting opinion for himself and Bachawat, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.