Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right, for it nourishes the independent and self-determining creative character of the individual... the right also extends to private life, marriage, family, and friendship, which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad." High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling, has held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed merely because the intended travel is for "social or celebratory" reasons.

A bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed that the request of an accused to travel abroad cannot be denied on the ground that the purpose is not urgent or fundamental, as such a distinction is unknown to law.

The petitioner, Devineni Avinash (Accused No. 31), filed a criminal revision challenging an order passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of CID Cases, Guntur. The Trial Court had dismissed his application for the return of his passport and permission to travel to the USA from June 30 to July 15, 2026, to attend his cousin's housewarming ceremony. The Trial Court had reasoned that the travel was purely social in nature and not based on any urgent necessity.

The primary point for consideration was whether the Trial Court’s order refusing travel permission was correct, legal, and proper. The court also examined whether the revision petition was maintainable under Section 397(2) of the CrPC and whether "social and celebratory" purposes constitute a valid ground for the denial of the right to travel abroad.

Revision Maintainable Against Intermediate Orders

The Court first addressed the maintainability of the revision petition. It noted that the impugned order, which refused the return of the passport and permission to travel, is "intermediate in nature" rather than purely interlocutory.

Consequently, the Court held that the revision is well maintainable and is not hit by the bar under Section 397(2) of the CrPC.

Right To Travel Abroad As A Basic Human Right

The Court relied heavily on the landmark jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court regarding personal liberty. It referred to the decision in Satish Chandra Verma, IPS v. Union of India, which drew from the constitutional bench ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Court Cites Maneka Gandhi Principles

The bench emphasized that the freedom to move abroad is a genuine human right that enlarges the scope of an individual's experience. The Court noted that this right is not restricted to professional or medical emergencies but extends to the sphere of private and family life.

Purpose Of Visit Cannot Be Restricted To Emergencies

The Court specifically addressed the Trial Court's reasoning that social visits do not warrant the exercise of discretion in favor of an accused. The Court found this distinction to be legally unsustainable and violative of the petitioner's rights.

"The request of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that the purpose of his visit abroad is purely social and celebratory in nature rather than urgent or fundamental," the bench observed.

Balancing Rights With Trial Requirements

While acknowledging the State’s concern that the investigation was pending and the petitioner was involved in other crimes (including one under the SC/ST Act), the Court noted that the petitioner had previously traveled to Spain and returned as per the conditions imposed.

"If certain conditions are imposed directing the petitioner to return to India and to attend the process of any inquiry, if necessary, the ends of justice would be sub-served," the Court remarked while setting aside the Trial Court's restrictive approach.

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case and set aside the order of the Special Court for CID Cases. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to return the petitioner’s passport and permitted him to travel to the USA between July 3, 2026, and July 12, 2026. The petitioner was ordered to report back to the authorities on July 13, 2026, without fail and to submit his detailed itinerary to the concerned Station House Officer and the Trial Court.

Date of Decision: 02 July 2026