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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more