INTRODUCTION
Right to livelihood is a part of Article 21 and no person shall be denied of it. Nevertheless, if anyone is unable to make such ends meet, then such a right as stated by the procedure which is established by law which must be fair, just and rational and which is in the sweeping delight of people, the application of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 is implausible. Livelihood can include basic shelter, food, education, occupation, employment and medical care. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood. Buying security and safety for oneself and the loved ones comes in the ambit of right to livelihood which is a fundamental right to each and every person of this nation which at last, only comes through earning a dignified amount of bread and butter. The courts, through continuous jurisprudence, have interpreted the Article in numerous ways. Some of these aspects include the right to livelihood.
Why Passport seizures nor correct in all cases?
But, the courts in today’s times have taken a step ahead to go further deep into the considerations of the situations that may affect a larger piece of society. And such was done by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hardik Shah v/s Union of India & Another that confiscating the passport of any travel blogger just in accordance with irrational reasons influences his/her fundamental rights of livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Travel blogging is sharing all travel experiences. Be it about a road trip, cultural practice or local food customs. And as the name itself suggests, that it needs travelling to various places, and this is the only way of many of such bloggers for earning their bread and butter whereas in such cases, the passport is the ultimate tool for them to carry on their employment works. Passports are most crucial if someone has to travel not only for bloggers but every citizen around the world if he/she wishes to travel abroad as that verifies the identity and nationality that keeps the person safe in a foreign land in all hard times. The purpose of a passport is to identify the holder of the document. And when it is the need of having employment totally based on traveling, then the word ‘Passport’ becomes a game changer. Also, the right to travel abroad is recognized as an integral fundamental right to every Indian national under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case, Sawant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam stated that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except with the procedure established by law. It is also to be taken into consideration that impounding may only be carried on if it is foreseen that the person against whom such seizure is to be taken forward, is likely to abscond or hinder the process of the judiciary. But in cases, where innocence proved denoted the need of the work for earning the livelihood, such ‘take-away’ is not justifiable. Travelling along with a passport is considered to be legal and all right. Whereas, in today’s digital era, blogging has been a part of income and employment for thousands of people all around the globe and this certainly affects them all be it a travel blogger, or food blogger or any type of blogging.
In the above stated case, a travel blogger moved to the High Court against the operation of the Regional Passport Authority by not issuing him a regular passport for a period of ten years and on the other hand, seizing his passport in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The court also held that any pendency of the matrimonial or criminal case in such an instance, cannot be a justifiable ground for seizure. It has also been categorically laid down that the seizure of a passport is always done at a particular moment of time such that it does not violate the fundamental right of citizens and hamper their livelihood in such cases. Also in the case, Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “the order impounding the passport of the petitioner was, therefore, clearly in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem and it was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967. In case of detaching the trespassers from any public property, any action taken by a public authority that is invested with statutory powers has, hence, to be tested by the application of two standards:
a) The step taken should be within the scope of concerned dominion conferred by law and
b) It must be rational
CONCLUSION
The impoverishment of subsistence would not only divest the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impracticable to live. And yet such deprivation of life would not be in a status to the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not considered as a part of the right to life. An order impounding a passport must be made quasi-judicially. Now is the time to take stock of the present circumstances for bringing down the curtain. As seen above by a catena of settled cases of the Supreme Court spread over decades it is now well stated that the word ‘life’ as employed by Article 21 takes in its sweep not only the notion of mere physical existence but also all finer morals of life including the right to work and right to livelihood. There are instances, where the criminal history, character, conduct of the person is taken up but, then, there should at last be taken in view that at all times, such decisions may hamper the life of individuals.
This right cannot be obstructed by the State save and except by a procedure emanating from a valid law which should be passed by a proficient legislature and which should not come in dispute with any of the other fundamental rights largely all those guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) in so far as they are available to concerned person invoking such a fundamental right.
References
1. https://www.google.com/search?q=need+of+earning+in+dignified+way+&ei=f_65Yb7HEryU4-EP9_2K-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwj-gsjchOb0AhU8yjgGHfe-An8Q4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=need+of+earning+in+dignified+way+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsAM6BwghEAoQoAE6BQghEKABOgQIIRAVSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUKgBWI4rYLwtaAFwAngAgAHyAYgBow2SAQUwLjguMpgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175123173/?type=print
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/572504/
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1747577/