RE-thinking Right to Passport as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court has enshrined the right to a passport under Article 21, the Right to Life. It is included to provide a legal guarantee to ordinary citizens to travel outside the country. However, treating the right to a passport as a fundamental right can be harmful to national security, sovereignty, and even the security of citizens themselves.

The decision to cross national borders should not lie exclusively with citizens. At certain times, it must be regulated by national authorities in the interest of national security, sovereignty, national dignity, and citizen safety. If there is sufficient evidence supporting suspicion of intelligence dissemination by certain groups, such individuals should be restricted within national borders. Similarly, people suspected of trans-border trafficking of drugs, weapons, or other illegal substances must not be granted immediate permission to leave the country. Moreover, an individual’s safety may be at risk in another country due to international tensions of which ordinary citizens may be unaware. In such situations, restricting travel may be necessary for the individual’s own security. Therefore, reasonable restrictions on holding or using a passport are essential.

While restrictions on travelling abroad are reasonable at certain times, granting this right a fundamental status is problematic. Fundamental rights such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination, and the right to personal freedom are sufficient to ensure that no citizen is arbitrarily or unfairly prevented from travelling abroad. Elevating the right to a passport to a fundamental right limits judicial and executive discretion to restrict travel under exceptional circumstances. It effectively ties the hands of authorities, even when there is a reasonable suspicion of harm to national security, sovereignty, or dignity. Furthermore, it places the entire burden of assessing personal safety in a foreign country on the citizen, without adequate state intervention.

Instead of granting the right to a passport the status of a fundamental right, the Supreme Court could have recognised it as an ordinary legal right subject to clearly defined and reasonable restrictions. Courts should be given the discretion to assess individual cases in light of prevailing circumstances and national interests. Such an approach would strike a balance between individual liberty and collective security, while preserving the sovereignty, security, and dignity of the nation.

In conclusion, while the freedom to travel abroad is an important aspect of personal liberty, its elevation to a fundamental right under Article 21 may undermine national security and public interest in exceptional situations. A regulated legal framework, rather than absolute constitutional protection, would better serve both individual rights and the broader needs of the state.