Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Fundamental Right to Travel: High Court Grants Permission to Former Punjab Minister to Attend Family Events in the USA

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, has reinforced the ‘fundamental right to travel’ by allowing a former Cabinet Minister and three-time MLA, Sangat Singh Gilzian, to visit the United States of America. The decision, dated November 6, 2023, facilitates Mr. Gilzian’s participation in familial events, including a wedding and a housewarming function, amidst his ongoing trial.

In the case of Sangat Singh Gilzian versus the State of Punjab, the Court observed that the “mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be made the basis to reject his prayer to travel abroad,” particularly when the petitioner has been compliant with all legal proceedings and has shown no inclination toward abscondment. The Court emphasized that the right to travel is not only a constitutional guarantee but also an extension of an individual’s personal life.

Justice Bahl’s decision overruled the trial court’s apprehensions about potential evasion of law, stating that such fears were based on “surmises and conjectures” and highlighting the lack of evidence to suggest the petitioner would not return. In the judgment, the Court remarked, “It is thus, apparent that the petitioner had raised debatable arguments with respect to his involvement in the FIR.”

The Court laid down stringent conditions for the petitioner’s travel, which include furnishing two sureties of Rs. 50 lakhs each and an undertaking to return to India immediately after the visit. Mr. Gilzian’s commitment to returning before the next hearing of his anticipatory bail application on November 29, 2023, played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

The ruling has drawn attention to the balance between individual freedoms and the requirements of the judicial process. It also sets a precedent for similar cases, where the personal liberties of individuals under trial are to be judiciously considered against the backdrop of their constitutional rights.

Advocates Mr. Gautam Dutt represented the petitioner, while Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appeared for the state. The case has been a focal point in discussions on the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights while ensuring that justice is served without prejudice or favor.   

Date of Decision: 06.11.2023

Sangat Singh Gilzian VS State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News