Delhi HC Refuses To Hear Plea Filed By Anti-Dam Activist Stopped From Flying Abroad

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by anti-dam activist Bhanu Tatak, who alleged that she was wrongfully stopped from travelling abroad to pursue her studies.

The court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter and directed the petitioner to seek relief from the appropriate court in Arunachal Pradesh.

Government Argues Petition Not Maintainable

During the hearing, Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, representing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and the Bureau of Immigration, argued that the petition was not maintainable in Delhi. He informed the bench that Tatak was facing multiple criminal cases in Arunachal Pradesh and that a Look Out Circular (LOC) had been issued by the authorities in Itanagar at the request of the local Superintendent of Police.

Court Refuses To Exercise Jurisdiction

The matter was heard by a bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who agreed with the government’s submissions. The judge observed that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and instructed Tatak to approach the Arunachal Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief. The petition was subsequently dismissed.

Background

The petition stemmed from an incident earlier this month when Tatak, a 30-year-old resident of Arunachal Pradesh, was stopped by immigration authorities at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) in Delhi while attempting to board a flight to Dublin. She was scheduled to leave for Ireland on September 7, 2025, to attend a three-month academic program at Dublin City University.

Despite presenting valid travel documents and an invitation letter from the university, she was informed by officials that an LOC had been issued against her, barring her from travelling. The petitioner claimed that neither she nor her family had ever been provided with a copy of the circular, despite repeated requests to the investigating authorities in Arunachal Pradesh.

Arguments Raised By The Petitioner

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Tatak, argued that the action taken by immigration authorities was arbitrary and unconstitutional. He contended that preventing the petitioner from travelling abroad for academic purposes infringed upon her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of movement), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The petition alleged that the move was unjustified and had disrupted her education without due process, thereby depriving her of her right to travel and pursue her studies.

Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case and instead pointed out that the petitioner must approach the competent jurisdiction in Arunachal Pradesh to seek appropriate legal remedies.