The Bombay High Court has underscored that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cautioned authorities against creating “unnecessary bureaucratic impediments” that undermine this right.
A division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Advait Sethna made these observations while granting relief to 76-year-old Sharad Khatu, whose passport renewal application was wrongly rejected due to an incorrect police entry showing a pending criminal case against him.
Khatu’s passport expired in October 2022, following which he applied for renewal. The passport authorities rejected his application citing an online record that showed a criminal case registered in 1990 as still pending.
When Khatu approached the concerned police station and local court, he was informed that no such case was pending. He submitted this clarification to the passport authorities, but his application was still closed, forcing him to approach the High Court.
During the hearing, the police informed the court that there was indeed no criminal case pending against Khatu. The bench referred to a Supreme Court judgment affirming that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
“Unnecessary bureaucratic impediments must not be created to frustrate this precious right,” the bench remarked in its order dated October 14.
The court noted that Khatu had lost “precious time” due to the incorrect police entry, which prevented him from travelling to Dubai to meet his son and grandchildren.
The bench directed Khatu to submit a fresh application for passport renewal or re-issuance. The passport authorities were instructed to decide and process it within two weeks.
The court further ordered the police to immediately delete the incorrect entry from their online portal to prevent any further difficulties for Khatu.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s consistent position that the right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed without due process, and that administrative errors should not be allowed to restrict fundamental freedoms. It also places an onus on both police and passport authorities to ensure accuracy in their digital records, especially for senior citizens.
