1. Submitted to: Submitted by:
PUCL Organization Siddhi Srivastava
B.B.A.-LL.B.(2nd
year)
Banasthali University
REPORT
on
Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai
Case

2. Pillai was stopped at Delhi airport on January 11 while heading to London to speak on
the alleged violation of forest right of tribals in the Mahan coal block area of Madhya
Pradesh. She was later told that her name was in a database of persons who were not
allowed to leave the country.
During the hearing in court, the Centre said she was stopped because her speech before
a UK parliamentarian group would have created a “negative image” of India abroad and
“whittle down foreign direct investments”. The government claimed that she was
involved in “anti-national activities”.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for Pillai, argued that barring her from
travelling to London is "completely unlawful and malafide and without any authority of
law" and demanded quashing of the alleged 'look out circular' (LOC) against her. She
also sought removal of remarks made on Pillai's passport by the immigration officials
Jaising submitted that Pillai does not have any criminal conviction against her nor has
there been any order impounding or revoking her passport by the concerned Passport
Authority. "She is not evading any trial or arrest under any law, for which a lookout
circular is to be issued. She is the victim of the system."
She further said Pillai has the right to project her views against the policies of
government in democratic country like India.
But the senior law officer of the government stuck to his guns saying that Pillai's
meeting with the committee would have had a "global cascading effect" which would
create a "false image" of the country's "massive" efforts to protect tribal rights. It would
only serve the "foreign policy interest of a foreign nation."
Jain argued the LOC "was focused only on the proposed activity of her deposing before
a foreign Parliament" and the government will withdraw it if she gives an undertaking
not to depose before the UK parliamentary committee on violation in the country. The
law officer alleged that UK, US and European Parliament bring out "heavily biased"
annual reports on rights violations which could leave India "open to a potential sanction
regime".
The Centre also offered to remove Greenpeace activists Priya Pillai's name from the
LOC list provided she gave an undertaking she won't "embarrass" the country by
addressing the United Kingdom Parliament on alleged human rights violation. But the
offer was rejected by Pillai even as the Delhi High Court termed the decision to offload
her last month as"inappropriate". "The government decision is not appropriate as there
are many people who indulged in various anti-national activities but were traveling
abroad," Justice Rajiv Shakdher said during a hearing that saw heated
exchangesbetween the Additional Solcitor General and the senior lawyers representing

3. Pillai.
HC said there can be a difference of opinion but it does not mean that a person's
movement is curtailed. "A difference point of view doesn't tantamount to being anti-
national," it remarked while responding to the claim of ASG Sanjay Jain that Pillai's
proposed "testimony" before a British parliamentary committee would have been
"prejudicial" to India's interests. HC pointed out how "this is not the first instance where
such an event is going to take place. We have to be careful with our decision or else the
same will bite us one day. There will be protest or agitation before the coming up of
projects in India but the same are settled as time passes."
Maintaining that travelling abroad and espousing one’s views without criminal intent do
not amount to “anti-national” activities, the Delhi High Court quashed on Thursday a
look-out circular issued against Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai, who was offloaded
from a flight to London here in January. The court directed the government to remove
her name from a database on individuals barred from leaving the country.
“Development activities — not now, but for ages — have always had a counterpoint.
The mere fact that such debates obtain, or such debates metamorphose into peaceful
protests, cannot be the reason for curtailing a citizen’s fundamental rights,” Justice
Rajiv Shakdher said ordering the State to expunge the endorsement “off-load” made on
Ms. Pillai’s passport. She was on her way to give a presentation to some British
parliamentarians about alleged human and forest rights violations in the Mahan forests
of Madhya Pradesh when immigration officials detained her just before boarding the
flight.
“We are relieved that the court has cracked down on this undemocratic abuse of power
by the government,” she said. The government’s action had sparked off an international
outrage. The court said it had difficulty accepting the “anti-national” argument “
It would result in conferring uncanalised and arbitrary power on the executive, which
could, based on its subjective view, portray any activity as anti-national. Such a
situation, in a truly democratic country, which is governed by the government,” she
said. The government’s action had sparked off an international outrage.
The court said it had difficulty accepting the “anti-national” argument." It would result
in conferring uncanalised and arbitrary power on the executive, which could, based on
its subjective view, portray any activity as anti-national. Such a situation, in a truly
democratic country, which is governed by the rule of law, is best avoided.”
Government lawyers argued that the look-out circular was legal, as Ms. Pillai had the
intention of portraying India in a negative light. Greenpeace International, which was

4. responsible for fomenting protests in India and with which Ms. Pillai was involved, had
paid for her travel and accommodation, they said.
The court found the arguments “untenable”. “This is not backed with actionable
material. The record would show that while the respondents may have regulated the
inflow of funds to Greenpeace International, by having it put in the ‘prior approval’
category, there is no such directive issued either qua Greenpeace U.K. or Greenpeace
India. Ms. Pillai is, admittedly, employed with Greenpeace India,” it said “We are yet to
receive the court order. Legal experts will examine the order to decide the further course
of action in
accordance with the law,” a Home Ministry official said.
The court said Ms. Pillai’s travel expenses met by Greenpeace U.K. could not be a
violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 since this did not amount
to “contribution” and was within the definition of “foreign hospitality”. The court did
not grant the compensation sought by Ms. Pillai, but asked her to take recourse to an
appropriate civil remedy if she wished to.
Thus sennding a terse message to the government against “muzzling” voices of dissent,
the Delhi High Court directed authorities to expunge the “offload” remark from the
passport of Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai, remove her name from a database and allow
her to travel abroad.
Stating that the right of free speech and expression “necessarily includes the right to
criticise and dissent”, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, in a 39-page order, said: “Criticism, by an
individual, may not be palatable; even so, it cannot be muzzled.
Many civil right activists believe that they have the right, as citizens, to bring to the
notice of the state the incongruity in the developmental policies of the state. The state
may not accept the views of the civil right activists, but that by itself, cannot be a good
enough reason to do away with dissent.”