Skip to main content

Denial to travel abroad to a valid T2 & T3 visa holder is a violation of fundamental right

Kerala High Court: In a recent case where respondent authorities illegally seized the passport of the dependants (wife and children) of victim of human trafficking in USA and denied them to travel to America, a bench of A.V.R. Pillai J, held that the denial of the same is not only violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners but also detrimental to the very concept of right, duties and obligations in matrimonial living of spouses.

The counsel for the petitioner M.P. Ramnath contended that when the petitioners are having due visas granted by the Government of USA and when there is nothing illegal about the petitioners duly traveling to USA to join their husband /father (victim of human trafficking in USA), it is absolutely illegal and baseless to restrain the petitioners to travel to USA. The counsel for the respondent N. Nagaresh contended that if the petitioners are permitted to go abroad, it would be against the provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 2000 passed by USA.

The Court observed that the Government of USA has granted proper visa to the petitioners to join their husband/father, and that the petitioners are not involved in any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation and are not the violators of the laws/ norms/ sovereignty and integrity of the country. The Court noted that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approves eligibility for grant of T-visa to a victim of severe form of trafficking and dependents only after detailed procedures, verification, adjudication and evaluation of independent evidence.

The Court found that in the instant case there is no violation of the provisions of Passport Act, 1967, and accordingly held that restraint of petitioners holding a valid T2 and T3 visa from traveling abroad to join husband/father who is duly employed therein is not only violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners but also detrimental to psychological growth and development of the spouse and children. The Court directed the respondents to permit and enable the petitioners to travel to USA.

A trafficking visa (T-visa) is a type of visa allowing certain victims of human trafficking and immediate family members to remain and work temporarily in the United States, if they agree to assist law enforcement in testifying against the perpetrators. [Mary Redi Kottunkal Joy v. Bureau of Immigration, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 940, decided on 04-03-2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/03/25/denial-to-travel-abroad-to-a-valid-t2-and-t3-visa-holder-is-a-violation-of-fundamental-right.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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