Skip to main content

‘Every citizen has fundamental right to go abroad’

The Delhi high court has noted that every citizen has the “fundamental right to travel abroad” and that nobody can be denied a passport for want of compulsory registration of an adoption deed.
While deciding a petition, Justice Manmohan held that to obtain a passport, the adoption of the applicant has to be legal and there is no compulsion that it must be registered.
The court directed the passport authority to decide petitioner’s request for passport in accordance with law within four weeks. “This court is of the view that every citizen of India has the fundamental right to travel abroad. Though the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions, yet this court is of the opinion that the restrictions have to be in accordance with law and the same cannot be unreasonable,” the bench said.
The court’s order came on a petition in which a passport-seeker had claimed that the passport office had refused to issue him a passport on the ground that his adoption deed dated September 20, 1989, had not been registered with the office of sub-registrar. The Centre, in turn, submitted that the petition is premature as no decision on petitioner’s application has been taken by the passport authority till date. The court noted: “Since Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not provide for compulsory registration of an adoption deed and a new adoption deed cannot now be registered in the present case as the age of the petitioner is above 15 years, this court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be directed to produce a registered adoption deed.”

 Article referred: http://www.asianage.com/delhi/every-citizen-has-fundamental-right-go-abroad-111

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more