MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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