Article 21 Protections Extend To Foreign Nationals: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Thai Woman's Passport In Gold Smuggling Case
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a Thai national's passport, accused of being a habitual gold-smuggler, holding that denial of such permission would violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that there were sufficient statutory safeguards to address the apprehension of the accused...
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a Thai national's passport, accused of being a habitual gold-smuggler, holding that denial of such permission would violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that there were sufficient statutory safeguards to address the apprehension of the accused person absconding to her mother-land, in form of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.
"The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners," it observed.
For context, the Court was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application seeking release of her passport.
The petitioner was a citizen of Thailand, who was a co-accused in a gold-smuggling case, under the Central Excise and Customs Act, 1962. After her arrest, her passport was seized, that expired in January 2025.
The petitioner was on bail, and had applied for the release of her passport so that she can get it renewed. This application was rejected on the ground of the pending criminal litigation against her, and the apprehension of her fleeing away and not returning. This order was challenged by her before the Court.
The State argued that she was a habitual offender, who had travelled to India on 4 prior occasions too, for the purpose of gold-smuggling, a fact admitted by her. Further, it was submitted that she had misused her bail earlier too by not appearing before the Court, post which her bail bonds were forfeited and she remained absconded till May 2026.
After hearing the contentions, the Court underscored the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that passport was the indispensable document that allowed an individual to cross international boundaries and sought entry in foreign territory.
“Consequently, in the absence of a valid passport, a citizen is rendered as an alien in the eyes of a foreign State, having no lawful authority to enter or remain within its territory. Therefore, any arbitrary or unlawful denial of an individual's passport amounts to deprivation of the citizen's fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In this background, the Court held that pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground to deny passport facilities, including its renewal, to the petitioner. Denial of such permission amount to violation of Article 21.
In relation to the apprehension of the petitioner absconding, the Court referred to Order/Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, that governed the grant of permission to the foreign nationals to depart from India.
The Court highlighted that the provision was explicit about the fact that the discretion lied with the Immigration Officer to grant/reject permission to any foreigner to depart from India.
Hence, the petition was allowed, with direction to the lower court to release the passport of the petitioner for its renewal.
Accordingly, the concerned State authorities were also directed to communicate the order to the Immigration Officer for taking appropriate steps.
Title: Saisuda Chuennok v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 208