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

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...