Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the case of Kamil Siedczynski v. Union of India and Ors., Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya noted that the valuable rights in favour of the petitioner, accrued to him by virtue of his visa granted by the Central Government itself, automatically brings with it the rights to life and personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which is applicable to all persons staying on Indian soil.
The Court primarily noted that the expulsion order was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the student from Poland, and without disclosing reasons.
It observed that the basic principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, was violated in the above case. The maxim "audi alteram partem" means "let the other side be heard as well." It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.
The case concerned the validity of the "Leave India" notice issued to Kamil Siedczynski, who was studying Comparative Literature in Jadavpur University on a Student Visa, which was valid till 3rd August of 2020.
On 14th February, the Foreigners' Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Kolkata, served him a notice to leave India by 9th March, citing that he had indulged in 'anti-government' activities by participating in rallies against the Citizenship Amendment Act. However, on 6th March, the Court had stayed the operation of the notice.
To defend the notice before the Court, the Central Government argued that a foreigner on student visa has no fundamental right to indulge in activities against the government. It was argued that a foreigner was not entitled to enjoy the liberties under Article 19 of the Constitution.
But, the Court pointed out that the petitioner would be entitled to rights under Article 21 to life and personal liberty, which cannot be curtailed in violation of the procedure established by law. The Court located Siedczynski's right to participate in anti-CAA rallies in his right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court traced political activity as a part of rights emanating from Article 21. Further, it was observed that the protection of Article 21 was available to a foreigner in Indian soil. The Court also observed that the right to life and personal liberty are basic human rights universally accepted by civilized society, and merely recognized in the Constitution of India.
In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta held that even a foreigner who is in Indian soil has the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Articel 21 of the Constitution of India, while it quashed the "Leave India" notice issued to a Polish student for participating in an anti-CAA rally.
86540
103860
630
114
59824