PRADEEP KUMAR SARWOGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lord Denning, M.R., in his work Freedom Under the Law (1949), described personal freedom as: the freedom of every law-abiding citizen to think what he will, to say what he will and to go where he will on his occasions without let or hindrance from any other person. The freedom to move and to travel, thus, lies at the heart of individual liberty. For such freedom to be real and not merely illusory, it must remain capable of exercise when the occasion arises, which necessarily presupposes that the citizen is in possession of the requisite travel credentials in advance. A liberty that can be exercised only after surmounting procedural or administrative impediments risks being rendered ineffective in practice.

(2.) In the constitutional framework, the freedom to move and to travel, though subject to regulation by law, forms an integral facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such freedom is not absolute, any regulatory restraint must remain grounded in law and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and cannot be permitted to assume the character of a punitive or indefinite restriction in the absence of adjudicated guilt. It is in this limited backdrop that the grievance raised in the present petition concerning renewal of the petitioner s passport falls for consideration.

(3.) The petitioner is an accused in Criminal Regular Case No. 142/2017 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, arising out of allegations relating to an allegedly forged Will. The petitioner is alleged to be a signatory as a witness to the said Will and, on that basis, has been arrayed as an accused for offences including Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It stands admitted on record that the petitioner has not been convicted in the said case or in any other criminal case.