TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of home Affairs, Chennai, dated 20.6.2012. 3.Even as per the admission of the petitioner, he was the Srilankan national and admittedly a foreigner. At present, he is 50 years old. He had entered India in the year 1988 under Student visa for the purpose of studying MBBS course and he joined the Madras Medical College. Even after 24 years, he has not finished his MBBS course. He is now studying final Part-II MBBS degree course. The petitioner by filing several writ petitions had managed to extend his student visa. The Visa was valid upto 13.7.2012. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was accused in the Chennai Airport Bomb blast case of the year 1984. He was convicted by the District Sessions judge, Chengalpet in 1987 in S.C.No.18 of 1987 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He had filed an appeal before this court in Criminal Appeal No.704 of 1989. He was acquitted during April, 2000. 4.It was the case of the respondents that after an expiry of his initial visa period on 10.1.1991, the petitioner did not come to the office of the Chief Immigration Officer for extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the LOC. The visa was issued only to complete his studies and that issuance of visa will not make the LOC inoperative. 7.Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.Seenivasagan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is having valid visa. Hence detaining him on the basis of the LOC is a clear harassment. His right as a human being is violated. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 48 which reads as follows: 48.In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer Government of India, New Delhi41 this Court ruled by majority that the expression personal liberty which occurs in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and that no person can be deprived of that right except according to procedure established by law. The Passports Act which was enacted by Parliament in 1967 in order to comply with that decision prescribes the procedure whereby an application for a passport may be granted fully or partially, with or without any endorsement, and a passport once granted may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhan Saha v. State of West Bengal45 adopted the same approach and considered the question whether the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 violated the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d). Thus, the inquiry whether the right to travel abroad forms a part of any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19(1) is not to be shut out at the threshold merely because that right is a part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. I am in entire agreement with brother Bhagwati when he says: The law must, therefore, now be taken to be well-settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21, such law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that article. It is not clear as to how the said passage will have any assistant to the petitioner as Article 19 will apply only to the citizens of India and not to Foreigners. 8.Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel referred to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (for sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred by Article 21 which is in the following terms: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 11.The rights of a foreigner in India has also been considered by the Supreme Court in relation to Article 19 and it was held that Article 19(1)(d) and (e) are unavailable to foreigners and no provisions of Article 14 can be invoked to obtain the fundamental right to a foreigner as held by the Supreme Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615 and in paragraph 75, it was observed as follows : 75.It is true that fundamental right is available to a foreigner as held in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India2: (SCC p. 562, para 13) The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country. As such Articles 19(1)(d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the LOC within the stipulated period of one year, the Immigration Officer concerned is authorized to suspend the LOC. 15.It is stated that statutory backing for the issuance of LOC can be placed to Passport Act, 1967, sections 10A and 10B. Section 10A gives power to a designated officer to suspend passport or render a travel document invalid for a period of 4 weeks and section 10B provides that every intimation given by the Central Government or the designated officer, to any immigration authority at an airport or any other point of embarkation or immigration, restricting or in any manner prohibiting the departure from India or any holder of the Passport or travel document. The other statutory provision relied upon is Section 41 of Cr. P.C. which requires police to arrest any person without warrants. The LOCs are issued at the behest of different agencies in accordance with Ministry of Home Affairs Circular No. 15022/13/78-F.1 dated 5th September, 1979, either to monitor the arrival/ departure of foreigners and Indians or to restrict arrival/departure of foreigners or Indians. 16.Considering that the petitioner is a foreigner, has right if any is subject to restricti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative to the appropriate Registration Officer specified in rule 7, a report (hereinafter referred to as a registration report) within the time specified in that rule: Provided that no such report shall be necessary in the case of a foreigner who enters India on a visa valid for a period of not more than one hundred and eighty days and who does not remain in India beyond the said period. 7(3)Every foreigner presenting a registration report shall furnish to the Registration Officer such information as may be in his possession for the purpose of satisfying the said officer as to the accuracy of t he particulars specified therein and shall, on being required to do sign the registration report in the presence of the said officer and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the said officer a certificate of registration in Part III of Form A: 19.Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that whenever he leaves or enters India, he is subjected to questioning by the authorities due to LOC can be said to be a violation of right of the petitioner as per the law made in India and even as per the International Convention referred to by him. Hence there is no case made out by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
