Delhi HC declines to hear plea filed by anti-dam activist stopped from flying abroad

New Delhi [India], September 12 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by anti-dam activist Bhanu Tatak, who alleged that she was wrongfully prevented from travelling abroad for her studies.
On the other hand, Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, representing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and the Bureau of Immigration, contended that the petition was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court. He pointed out that the petitioner was facing multiple criminal cases in Arunachal Pradesh and that the Look Out Circular (LOC) had been issued at the request of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Itanagar.
The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma agreed with the submissions made on behalf of the government and observed that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Arunachal Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief and accordingly dismissed the petition.
The activist had approached the Court after she was stopped by immigration authorities at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport while attempting to board a flight to Dublin earlier this month.
According to the petition, Tatak, a 30-year-old resident of Arunachal Pradesh, was scheduled to travel to Ireland on September 7, 2025, for a three-month course at Dublin City University. Despite having a valid invitation letter and travel documents, she was informed by immigration officials that she could not board the flight as a Look Out Circular (LOC) had been issued against her. The petition stated that neither she nor her family members had ever been provided a copy of the LOC, despite repeated requests to the investigating authorities in Arunachal Pradesh.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Tatak, argued that the restriction imposed by the immigration department violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that the action was arbitrary and unjustified, as it obstructed her freedom to travel abroad for academic purposes. (ANI)