Recent attempts by law enforcement agencies to prevent two citizens, both critics of the Modi government, from leaving the country, have attracted public attention because there seemed to be little justification for them. Both had to approach the court for relief, and though the wrong order was set aside in one case, proceedings are continuing in the other. Journalist Rana Ayyub and writer Aakar Patel, who is also a former chairperson of Amnesty India International, were stopped at airports as lookout notices had been issued for them. Rana Ayyub was allowed by the Delhi High Court to travel, subject to certain conditions. A Delhi court had struck down the restraint imposed on Patel, too, who had been stopped at the Bengaluru International Airport last week. The court had even directed the CBI Director to apologise to Patel in public to “heal the wounds’’ of the victim and to uphold the trust and confidence of the public in the agency. It also wanted accountability to be fixed for the “arbitrary’’ act against Patel. But Patel was stopped again the next day at the airport and the legal process is still continuing.
The cited ground for the restriction imposed on both was that the ED and the CBI were investigating charges of violation of foreign funding regulations against them. But the courts were not convinced that it provided a sufficient reason to stop them from travelling. They had speaking engagements abroad and the intention may have been to disrupt the programmes and harass them. The action against them violated their fundamental rights — their liberty and the right to freedom of speech and expression. It should be noted that only the critics of the government or those who are against it are denied their rights and subjected to such harassment.
The need for issuing lookout notices to Ayyub and Patel is disputable. They are issued when someone accused of a cognisable offence is evading arrest or is a flight risk and may not return to the country to face the legal process. A person can also be stopped from leaving the country if his or her absence might affect the investigations. These reasons are not applicable in either case because they have been cooperating with the investigating agencies. There are also court judgements that disapprove of unfair and unreasonable restrictions on foreign travel by citizens. But government agencies are resorting to such actions with impunity. The message being sent out through the restrictive actions is that criticism of the government and those in high political offices will have consequences for citizens. It is not a good message, and every such case of denial and suppression of rights shrinks the democratic space for citizens.