Case Title:
Harshavardhana Rao K v. Union Of India
Citation:
WRIT PETITION No.12185 OF 2022
Date of Order:
August 24, 2022
Bench:
Justice M Nagaprasanna
Parties:
Petitioner- Harshavardhana Rao K
Respondent- Union of India
SUBJECT
This writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of an order of ‘mandamus’ against the Deputy Commissioner of Police asking to recall the lookout notice that had been issued against the petitioner in relation to charges under the POCSO Act. This barred him from traveling to Paris for official purposes, during which he was not provided with a copy of the notice. The Court disposed of this petition observing that a prior notice need not be issued to the subject, but a copy of the lookout notice has to be provided with in case of taking away his fundamental right to travel.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Article 226- This Article of the Constitution vests with the High Courts the power to issue writs, directions, and orders to move individuals or government authorities in case of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
- Article 21- This is a fundamental right that guarantees the right to life and liberty to persons and this cannot be taken away except according to the due process of law. The right to travel also comes under this Article as all persons have the fundamental right to movement.
- Section 10, Passports Act, 1967- The sub-sections a and b of this Section authorise the Passport Authority to vary or cancel passports or any travel documents if needed with prior approval of the Central Government. This can be necessary if there are any offenses against the holder proceeding in any court within India.
OVERVIEW
- The wife of the petitioner had filed a petition at the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. A complaint was also filed against him before the police, under the POCSO Act alleging him of sexually abusing his son. He was taken into custody for two months and granted bail.
- While the petitioner was at the Bangalore Airport, on an official trip to Paris, he was stopped by the Immigration Authorities and informed that a lookout notice had been issued against him by the Deputy Police Commissioner. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the LOC. The petitioner’s representations seeking recall of the notice have been stayed by the Additional Sessions Court. Since this was a violation of the fundamental right to travel, this writ petition was filed.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether an individual’s fundamental right to travel guaranteed by Article 21 could be taken away by the power of a lookout notice.
- Whether a subject needs to be informed beforehand of the issuance of a lookout notice against him.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioner argued that all charges against him were registered by his wife which were false and the proceedings regarding them were pending.
- The right to travel was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. The lookout notice that took away this right from the petitioner came without any prior information and no copy was provided of the same. All representations regarding this have gone unheeded.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent defended the execution and origin of the LOC contending that the originator of the same was the State Government and not the Bureau of Immigration.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court summarised the framework of an LOC and how it is originated and executed. In this case, the manner in which this notice has been originated or executed is not in dispute. The objective of LOC is to make sure that the subject is available for inquiry, trial, or any investigation.
- The LOC is a document that has the power to take away an individual’s right to travel. It is issued when a certain person is found to be evading arrest, not appearing before Court, or in exceptional cases wherein the person is found to be sovereignty, integrity, or security of India or to the bilateral relations between India and any other nation.
- The framework of LOC itself does not allow the issuance of any notice informing the subject beforehand of such lookout notice against him. Therefore the contention of it not being provided, by the petitioner does not stand and is rejected.
- However, according to the procedure established by law, the subject would be entitled to a copy of the notice in a situation where his travel is barred by the power of the same. This is so that the subject becomes aware of the grounds by which his fundamental right to travel is being taken away. An accused who is on bail has the right to know why his travel is being stalled.
CONCLUSION
The Court concluded that as the charges levied against the subjects are still awaiting proceedings in competent courts the prayer to recall the lookout notice cannot be granted. All that can be granted to the petitioner would be a copy of the notice, informing him of the reasons for which his travel was stalled. Therefore the originator is required to furnish the petitioner with a copy of the same. Thus the petition was disposed of.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
