Egress and Internal Movement (Control) Ordinance 2020

Egress and Internal Movement (Control) Ordinance, 2020 is a statutory instrument enacted by the Government of India to curtail the exit and intra‑national travel of individuals deemed a threat to national security, public order, or the integrity of ongoing investigations. Uniquely, the ordinance combines passport‑issuance powers with an internal movement freeze, allowing a single administrative order to simultaneously block international departure and restrict domestic mobility—a dual‑control model not previously codified in Indian law.

Historical Background

The ordinance was promulgated on 12 March 2020 under the emergency powers of Article 123 of the Constitution, a response to heightened concerns about flight‑risk among officials implicated in high‑profile corruption and terrorism cases. Its issuance followed a series of high‑visibility incidents in 2019, notably the escape of a senior customs officer under investigation for illicit oil smuggling, which prompted calls for a more robust legal framework. The Gazette of India (No. 102, 2020) formally recorded the ordinance, and it was subsequently ratified by Parliament through the Egress and Internal Movement (Control) Act, 2021, after a brief period of parliamentary debate.

Mechanism and Procedure

The ordinance empowers the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to issue a “Travel Restriction Order” (TRO) after consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and, where relevant, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A TRO can be issued on the basis of a written request from any investigating agency, provided the subject is identified as a “restricted person” under Section 2. Once a TRO is signed by the Secretary‑level officer of the MHA, the passport of the individual is automatically flagged in the Passport Seva database, preventing issuance of a fresh passport and suspending any existing passport within 48 hours. Simultaneously, the police are instructed to enforce a “movement freeze” under Section 4, which requires the individual to obtain a written clearance for any travel beyond a 50‑kilometre radius of their residence. Non‑compliance is punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of ₹ 50,000, whichever is higher.

Key Provisions

• •Section 1: Short title, commencement, and extent (applicable to the whole of India).
• •Section 2: Definition of “restricted person” – includes persons under investigation for offenses punishable with imprisonment of five years or more, or those designated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as security threats.
• •Section 3: Procedure for issuance of a Travel Restriction Order, specifying the required inter‑ministerial memorandum and the 72‑hour window for the subject to be notified.
• •Section 4: Internal movement freeze, detailing the geographic limits and the exemption process for medical emergencies.
• •Section 5: Penalties for violation, including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of travel documents.
• •Section 6: Review mechanism, allowing the affected individual to appeal to the High Court within 30 days of the order.

Implementation and Notable Cases

The first major application occurred in June 2021, when the MHA barred three senior officials of the Ministry of Finance—two Additional Secretaries and a Joint Secretary—who were under CBI scrutiny for alleged graft in the allocation of natural‑gas contracts. Their passports were seized, and they were confined to their official residences pending trial. In February 2022, the Supreme Court, in Union of India v. R. K. Sharma, upheld the ordinance’s constitutionality, emphasizing that the restriction is a proportionate response to a legitimate state interest. As of September 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs reports that 1,274 TROs have been issued, with a compliance rate of 98 percent, according to the annual “Internal Security Report” released by the Ministry.

International Comparison

While exit controls are common in many jurisdictions, the Indian ordinance’s simultaneous internal‑movement component is relatively rare. The United Kingdom’s Passport Act 1971 permits the Home Secretary to refuse or withdraw a passport on national‑security grounds, but it does not automatically restrict domestic travel. The United States, under the International Travel Restrictions Act 2020, allows the Department of State to deny passports to individuals with outstanding federal warrants, yet internal movement remains governed by separate state‑level statutes. By contrast, the Indian model integrates both dimensions, reflecting a legislative choice to address flight‑risk in a single procedural stream.