The right to travel has long been recognized as an integral aspect of personal liberty, human dignity, and individual autonomy. In the Indian constitutional framework, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that the right to travel—both within the country and abroad—is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The answer to this question is that the right to travel is considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
A detailed understanding of the jurisprudence, legal principles, and case laws surrounding this right reveals that it is deeply linked to the broader notions of freedom, privacy, self-determination, and the constitutional promise of ensuring a dignified existence. This comprehensive discussion elaborates on the scope, extent, limitations, and judicial precedents concerning the right to travel under Indian law.
Meaning and Scope of the Right to Travel Under Article 21
Article 21 has evolved through judicial interpretation to become one of the widest constitutional guarantees covering a vast array of human liberties. At its core, the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, freedom of movement, and autonomy over one’s actions unless a valid law restricts it.
The right to travel may be understood in two vital dimensions:
- The right to travel within the country (intra-national travel).
- The right to travel outside India (international travel).
Both these components have been recognized as essential to an individual’s personal liberty.
1. Right to Intra-national Travel
The ability to move freely across India is also supported by Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. When combined with Article 21, this right becomes even more robust, offering protection from unreasonable restrictions imposed by the State.
Some circumstances where intra-national travel may be restricted include:
- Restrictions imposed during epidemics or pandemics.
- Travel bans imposed during curfew or emergencies.
- Restrictions related to security concerns for certain regions.
- Preventive detention laws where movement may be restrained.
However, any such restriction must comply with the tests of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality laid down under Article 21.
2. Right to International Travel
The right to travel abroad has been clearly recognized by courts as a part of personal liberty. It allows individuals to pursue employment opportunities, education, tourism, business, medical treatment, or personal reasons without arbitrary interference by authorities.
The government may regulate this right only through fair, reasonable, and lawful procedures such as:
- Suspension of passport under the Passport Act, 1967.
- Travel restrictions for people facing serious criminal charges.
- Look-out circulars (LOCs) issued for law enforcement purposes.
- Court-imposed travel restrictions during pending investigations.
Even in such cases, the guiding principle is that restrictions must not be arbitrary, excessive, or disproportionate.
Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Travel
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively to include every aspect of life that makes living meaningful and dignified. The right to travel is an essential part of personal liberty because it allows an individual to explore opportunities, maintain social relations, and access global resources.
Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e)
These provisions grant citizens:
- The right to move freely throughout India.
- The right to reside and settle in any part of India.
Thus, the right to travel within the country receives explicit constitutional protection, whereas the right to travel abroad flows from the broad interpretation of Article 21.
International Law Influence
India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which recognizes the right to leave and return to one’s country. Although international law is not directly enforceable, Indian courts often view it as persuasive when interpreting constitutional rights.
Evolution of Judicial Interpretation
The jurisprudence on the right to travel has evolved gradually through landmark judgments. Each case strengthened its recognition as a fundamental right.
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This case is the backbone of the right to travel jurisprudence in India. The petitioner’s passport was impounded without giving any reason, and she challenged the order as being violative of Article 21.
The Supreme Court held that:
- The right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21.
- Any restriction on this right must be fair, just, and reasonable.
- The State must follow a procedure that is not arbitrary or oppressive.
This judgment established that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must satisfy the principles of natural justice.
2. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)
Before Maneka Gandhi, this judgment recognized the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty. The Court held that the government cannot restrict the right to travel except through a legally sound process.
3. Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab
The Court reiterated that the right to travel is integral to personal liberty and cannot be abridged without lawful, proportional restrictions.
4. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)
Here, the Supreme Court held that imposing excessive travel restrictions while granting anticipatory bail must be avoided unless there is a compelling necessity.
5. Modern Context: LOCs, Passport Suspension & Pending Cases
In recent years, Indian courts have frequently dealt with cases involving Look-Out Circulars, passport cancellations, and restrictions imposed during criminal investigations. Courts consistently maintain that:
- The right to travel cannot be denied indefinitely.
- Travel can be permitted with reasonable conditions such as surety, undertaking, or periodic reporting to authorities.
- Restrictions must not be punitive unless authorised by law.
Statutory Framework Regulating the Right to Travel
1. Passport Act, 1967
This Act empowers the government to issue, impound, or revoke passports. Although the Act gives wide powers, it requires authorities to record reasons and follow a fair procedure.
Passports may be suspended for:
- National security.
- Public interest.
- Pending criminal proceedings.
- Fraudulent procurement.
However, even in these cases, the right to travel remains protected unless there is a compelling ground.
2. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
In matters involving serious offences, courts may:
- Restrict travel during investigation.
- Impose conditions for travel abroad.
- Direct the accused to deposit a passport.
- Allow travel subject to undertakings and sureties.
Yet, such restrictions must be reasonable and time-bound.
3. Look-Out Circulars (LOCs)
LOCs are used in cases involving criminal investigations, economic offences, or situations where a person may abscond. However:
- LOCs cannot be issued arbitrarily.
- They must be reviewed periodically.
- Affected individuals have the right to challenge them.
Courts often modify or quash LOCs if they find them disproportionate.
When the Right to Travel May Be Restricted
Although the right to travel is fundamental, it is not absolute. The State may impose restrictions in certain circumstances, such as:
- Public interest or national security.
- Pending criminal proceedings.
- Tax evasion or financial fraud investigations.
- Violation of immigration laws.
- Pandemic-related restrictions.
- Preventive detention laws.
- Under specific statutory provisions such as FERA, FEMA, NDPS, and Customs laws.
However, courts insist that:
- Restrictions must not violate Article 21.
- Procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable.
- Restrictions must be proportionate and necessary.
Significance of the Right to Travel in Modern India
The right to travel has deep socio-economic and personal implications. It empowers individuals to:
- Seek global employment opportunities.
- Pursue better educational prospects.
- Undergo medical treatment abroad.
- Reunite with family members.
- Explore business ventures.
- Broaden cultural and social perspectives.
For professionals, students, businesspersons, and employees, the ability to travel freely is essential for advancement and economic participation.
For courts, safeguarding this right has become increasingly important in the age of globalization, where international mobility is crucial.
Practical Legal Remedies for Violations of the Right to Travel
If an individual’s right to travel is restricted arbitrarily, the following remedies are available:
1. Filing a Writ Petition in the High Court
Under Article 226, a person can challenge:
- Illegal LOCs.
- Arbitrary denial of passport renewal.
- Unjustified impounding of passport.
- Excessive court-imposed restrictions on travel.
2. Filing an Appeal or Review under the Passport Act
One can challenge the reasons recorded by authorities for impounding a passport.
3. Application before Trial Court
A person with pending criminal proceedings can seek:
- Permission to travel.
- Relaxation of conditions.
- Temporary release of passport.
4. Quashing of LOC
Courts often quash LOCs where:
- There is no ongoing investigation.
- Chargesheet has been filed.
- The person has cooperated with the investigation.
- The LOC was issued mechanically.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is the right to travel a fundamental right in India?
Yes, the right to travel—both within India and outside—is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Can the government restrict the right to travel?
Yes, but only through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, and only when it is necessary for public interest, national security, or legal proceedings.
Can a person with a pending criminal case travel abroad?
Yes, but they generally need permission from the court. Courts often allow travel with reasonable safeguards.
Can an LOC stop someone from travelling abroad?
Yes. An LOC can prevent a person from leaving the country, but it can be challenged if it is arbitrary or unjustified.
Can a passport be suspended without giving reasons?
No. Authorities must record reasons in writing and follow due process.
Conclusion
The recognition of the right to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding personal liberty, human dignity, and freedom of movement. Through landmark decisions, particularly in Maneka Gandhi, Indian courts have affirmed that travel—whether domestic or international—is essential to the enjoyment of life and liberty. While the State may impose restrictions in exceptional circumstances, such restrictions must always adhere to fair procedures, proportionality, and constitutional safeguards. In a globalized world, this right forms a foundational pillar of individual autonomy and becomes indispensable for personal, professional, and economic growth.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304