Granting relief to Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai, who was stopped from flying to London in January, the Delhi High Court on Thursday quashed the "lookout" circular issued against her and questioned the government's move to stop her from travelling.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher also directed the Bureau of Immigration to expunge the endorsements "off-load" made on Pillai's passport when she was off-loaded from a flight to London by immigration officials at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on January 11.

"Bureau of Immigration shall expunge the endorsement 'off-load' made on Pillai's passport. Furthermore, the government shall also remove Pillai's name from the 'database' maintained by them pertaining to those individuals who are not allowed to leave the country," said the court in its order.

Pillai was invited to London to brief British parliamentarians on her campaign with local communities in Mahan in Madhya Pradesh, where a proposed coal mining project is allegedly threatening to uproot the lives and livelihood of a community but prevented from leaving the country by the central government.

In its reaction, Greenpeace India welcomed the relief granted to Pillai, terming "the court's decision as a vindication of the group's legitimacy and the validity of its campaigns for the rights of people to their land and forests for clean energy, a healthy environment and to hold corporations and the government accountable".

Pillai, in a statement, said: "We are relieved that the court has cracked down on this undemocratic abuse of power by the government. The bar on my travel was a clear violation of civil rights."

"If this government is genuine about its promise of inclusive development that benefits all, it needs to work with civil society rather than seek to suppress it. We hope that this signals the end of the harassment that Greenpeace India and other genuine activists are facing," she said.

The high court, upholding Pillai's right to travel and freedom of speech and expression, also questioned the government's move to interfere with an individual's freedom.

"Why must the state interfere with the freedom of an individual, as long as the individual concerned operates within the ambit of laws framed by the legislature?" Justice Shakdher said.

"Pillai's right to travel abroad and interact with relevant stake holders (i.e., the British parliamentarians) to persuade them to have entities incorporated in their country to fall in line with the developmental ethos, which is close to her ideology and belief, cannot be impeded only because it is not in sync with policy perspective of the executive," the court held.

The central government earlier told the court that Pillai was "involved in anti-national activities" and that was why she was offloaded at the airport. It had also said that government prevented Pillai from leaving India on the ground that she would project a negative image of the country at the international level.

However, the court said that travelling abroad and espousing views, without any criminal intent, cannot put Pillai in the category of an anti-national element.

"A person falling in the category of an anti-national element... can only be that person who projects a present and imminent danger to the national interest. Travelling abroad and espousing views, without any criminal intent of the kind adverted to above, cannot, in my opinion, put Pillai in the category of an anti-national element," it said.

Constitutional right

Pillai, represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Bhavook Chauhan, has asserted that her Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression and right to life and personal liberty was violated by the unexplained and illegal action of the government in restricting her foreign travel on the basis of a “Look Out Circular (LOC)” and of the Intelligence Bureau – which is not a law enforcement agency - in putting her name on the LOC.

The government had neither impounded nor suspended her passport under the Passports Act 1967 – the only two ways to legally restrict an Indian citizen’s travel, she submitted.

The ministry of home affairs (MHA) had filed an affidavit stating that she was included, along with other citizens, in the LOC as “element acting against national interest”. The MHA stated in the affidavit:

“Priya Parameswaran Pillai was travelling to UK to depose before a formal committee of the UK Parliament with the clearly defined motive of carrying out a campaign against the government of India in order to impact India’s image abroad , at a time when India is looking forward to foreign direct investments in India’s infrastructure and manufacturing sector” and that Greenpeace international has for the last few years “focused on India’s energy plans, suspected to be at the behest of foreign interests inimical to the overall national interest of India”.

Pillai has submitted in her writ:

“The words ‘anti national elements etc in larger national interest’ can only be interpreted as ejusdem generis with sovereignty or integrity of India, or must be ignored. Acting against the sovereignty and integrity of India can only mean action in an unlawful manner with the intention to overthrow the government with unlawful and unconstitutional means or by secessionist activities or for impairing the integration of India. Expressing an opinion on the economic activities of the government or on the investment decision of a particular multinational corporation to invest in coal mining in India, to the extent that it impacts the lives of the tribal people or the environment, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be construed as against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.”

She has also submitted that it is not a sovereign function to encourage FDI into India and is rather the private business agenda of Essar – the company which is hurting the interests of the tribe in Madhya Pradash whose cause Pillai is advocating. She has pointed out that the government, during arguments, resorted to “pre-publication censorship” by promising her unrestricted travel abroad were she to give an undertaking that she would not speak to a group of parliamentarians in the UK.

The case files

• Government counter affidavit vs Priya Pillai
• Priya Pillai Rejoinder Affidavit
• Priya Pillai - final written submissions

With inputs from IANS