KATHMANDU: Contrary to the right given by the Constitution and the precedent of the Supreme Court, the Department of Immigration has again proposed to amend the visit visa provision of the Immigration Procedures 2008 with another controversial point.
Only four days ago, the Department sent a working procedure proposal to the Ministry of Home Affairs inserting the rules that require the consent of the family and the mandatory recommendation of the ward office when a woman under 40 years travels abroad alone.
The proposal includes the proposal of making non-life accident insurance of up to Rs 1.5 million mandatory for women going abroad on a visit visa.
“Considering the increase in the instances of human trafficking, exploitation, difficulty in rescuing the victims of various problems and lack of medical treatment in foreign lands, the revised procedure has been proposed a few days ago,” Tek Narayan Poudel, the Information Officer at the Department told Khabarhub about the new procedure.
He informed that the procedure will come into force following necessary consultation and discussion at the legal department of the Home Ministry.
Earlier, in December the Department had proposed a procedure making the ability to speak in English mandatory. The proposal was also opposed as controversial.
Immediately after the proposal became public, there has been a social media protest against the Department of Immigration’s attitude towards women.
Information official Poudel defends the Department’s proposal arguing that the prevalent procedure has been misused and needs amendment.
“This rule will not apply to women who go abroad time and again and this rule does not apply to the educated women either,” Poudel tried to defend the new proposal, “the amendment will help ensure that women are not further exploited.”
Earlier, in December the Department had proposed a procedure making the ability to speak in English mandatory. The proposal was also described as controversial.
Experts opine such procedures violate the constitutional rights of the citizen one after the other and term preparation of such procedures as part of ‘manipulation’ and ‘setting.’
They think such rules are likely to increase the possibility of manipulation at the airport’s immigration office, which may incite people to illegal measures like preparing counterfeit documents or paying more to the agencies which claim to ‘facilitate’ the travel.
Meanwhile, information Officer Poudel claims that the procedures have fulfilled the security obligations of any citizen and especially women.
Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi states it is the constitutional right of any citizen to visit any country freely and without hindrance. Any citizen can travel abroad freely by abiding by the legal provisions of the respective country.
“If there is an issue of human trafficking or other serious problems, the information should be obtained and the person should be arrested and prosecuted in the country where the incident took place,” Tripathi told Khabarhub adding, “for that the government has set up a body including the Human Trafficking Bureau of Nepal Police. However, the Department of Immigration is not allowed to do anything on the basis of suspicion.”
“How can the authority deprive an individual of exercising their constitutional rights on the basis of whether the individual knows the English language or not?” Tripathi questioned the rationality behind making such provisions.
Charan Prasai, Human Rights Activist: Looking at the new proposal made by the Immigration Department to amend the procedure, it looks very controversial. Looking at the points mentioned in the proposal, it is seen that the right of a citizen to move freely from one place to another has been curtailed.
Every person has a sovereign right. It also seems to be trying to control the right of every citizen to exercise the rights given by the constitution in the name of the regulation. In any democracy, such an issue is a violation of human rights. The government cannot be prevented from exercising its constitutional rights.
Dinesh Tripathi, Senior Advocate: The new immigration proposal does not appear to be in consistent with the constitution. Why should any person go abroad with the recommendation of his family and local level (ward office)?
Even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everybody has the right to leave his country and go abroad. You have the right to return home from abroad. It is unconstitutional for the ward to need a recommendation after the government issues a passport.
Either Nepal is said to have returned in the 18th century. The court has also spoken in Lenin Bista’s case. The court has also said that the right to go abroad is inherent in the government after the release of the capital.
It is seen that the government’s decision to take recommendations from the ward has turned towards regression.
What has happened to the people of the government is that there is a fear that Nepalis will speak against the government when they go out. This is unconstitutional. Any citizen should be allowed to walk freely as per the instructions of the country concerned.
Som Luitel, Advocate, Advocate and Informant of Immigration Law: The new proposal to amend the current procedure of the Immigration Department is controversial. There is a general tendency to go for a visit visa and face various problems. The problem is caused by the government’s provision that people are responsible for visiting visas. With some problems in the UAE, the government seems to be trying to set standards.
About two and a half years ago, immigration officials stopped Lenin Bista from Kavre, who was about to fly to Thailand to attend a program after completing all the procedures.
But the government needs to pay attention to some things while formulating such criteria. While making any criteria, the provision made by the constitution regarding the movement of persons was not violated.
What is the policy of the government? Long-term legislation should be enacted by recognizing the difficulties that will come later in such matters.
Another is that it is better to arrange for those who go on a visit visa not to change to a working visa. The provision that you can go on a visit visa only if you have studied so much or you can go abroad only if you have so much money violates the right given by the constitution.
The criterion of being able to go abroad, regardless of one’s income or education, undermines one’s freedom.
Experts allege that the Immigration Department is trying to come up with its own procedures to make the setting and the amount easier.
He says, ‘After bringing a procedure that hurts the citizens and entangles them in various troubles, it seems that they are trying to bring their own rules as it will be easier to send people by collecting money in the setting.
It is not right to bring such rules that cause unnecessary inconvenience to the citizens. ‘ Nor should the rights granted by the constitution be snatched away by embarrassment.
Such is the precedent of the Supreme Court
About two and a half years ago, immigration officials stopped Lenin Bista from Kavre, who was about to fly to Thailand to attend a program after completing all the procedures.
After that, a bench of Justices Ananda Mohan Bhattarai and Kumar Regmi ruled on Bista’s writ petition to the Supreme Court in Kartik, 2076 BS.
Bista is a former Maoist fighter. He served as a child soldier in the Maoists during the 12-year conflict. The Home Ministry had instructed him to stop, fearing that he would go to foreign programs and talk about Nepal’s conflict.
The verdict stated that the face of the letter that stopped Bisht from going abroad was against the rule of tyranny and rule of law.
“It is not written in the Passport Act nor in the Immigration Act and Rules that one cannot go abroad without the recommendation or approval of any government body,” the ruling said.
“Freedom, equality, respect, inclusion and participation are inherent and non-transferable rights of the citizen. Respecting these rights is the first religion of the state.
The apex court had said that the permission of the Home Ministry should be sought before going to any event to make a statement. It is only possible in the police state, not in a democracy, to keep ideas and expressions at the will of the executive.
Therefore, the argument does not appear to be constitutional in any way, the verdict said. The Supreme Court has said, “Such travel cannot be stopped unless the authorized body initiates legal action and stops foreign travel within the jurisdiction of the law.”
The full text of the judgment, issued in July 2077, clarifies the constitutional and legal boundaries between the perimeter of civil liberties and the controlling power of the government, and what these boundaries should be in a democracy.
“In a democracy like ours, which is just about to move to the left, government bodies need to find answers to the question of how to deal with citizens,” the ruling said.
“Freedom, equality, respect, inclusion and participation are inherent and non-transferable rights of the citizen. Respecting these rights is the first religion of the state.
In ruling on Bisht’s writ, the Supreme Court explained the importance of individual freedom, equality and the right to live with dignity.
Thus, the Immigration Department has repeatedly proposed amendments to the rules of procedure that violate the right of citizens to travel abroad without any hindrance, even in the case of the Supreme Court.
Comment