Right to Travel Abroad Is a Fundamental Right, Not a Favour: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹50 Crore Condition Imposed by DRT for Foreign Travel

"DRT Cannot Impose Conditions That Law Does Not Sanction – Right to Travel Abroad Can Only Be Restricted by Enacted Law, Not Executive Fiat", In a significant judgment reasserting the primacy of personal liberty, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore on December 2, 2025, struck down an order of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Indore, that had imposed a condition requiring a ₹50 crore deposit or surety for permitting a loan guarantor to travel abroad.

Justice Pranay Verma held that the Recovery Officer’s direction not only exceeded the statutory limits of the DRT’s power under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) but also violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

“No person can be deprived of his right to travel abroad except according to the procedure established by law. The DRT being a creature of statute cannot assume powers it does not possess,” the Court held, quoting constitutional doctrine and landmark Supreme Court rulings in Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi.

“Personal Liberty Includes the Right to Travel Abroad” – DRT Order Held to Violate Articles 19 and 21

The petitioner, Rajiv Soni, an ex-director and guarantor of loans availed by Metalman Industries Ltd., had sought permission to travel to the United States, where he had accepted an employment offer. The DRT, while permitting the travel, imposed Condition No. (ii) requiring him to deposit ₹50 crore (either in cash, immovable property, or equivalent shares) as a security measure.

Challenging the condition before the High Court, Soni argued that such a draconian requirement effectively violated his constitutional rights, especially the right to travel and earn a livelihood.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s contentions and categorically held:

“When the Tribunal does not have the power to deprive a person of his right to travel abroad, it would not also have any power to impose any condition upon him for such travel.”

Justice Verma underlined that no provision in the RDDBFI Act or the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, authorizes the Tribunal or Recovery Officer to regulate, restrict, or prohibit foreign travel.

DRT’s Powers Must Flow from Statute – No Inherent Authority to Restrict Movement

Rejecting the respondent ICICI Bank’s argument that the petitioner should have pursued an appellate remedy before the DRT’s Presiding Officer, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable when fundamental rights are at stake.

“Existence of alternate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when a constitutional right is being violated,” the Court reiterated.

In interpreting the scope of Section 19(25) and Rule 18 of the DRT Rules, which were invoked by the Recovery Officer, the Court ruled that such procedural provisions cannot be interpreted to create new substantive powers, especially not at the cost of fundamental rights.

The Court noted that Section 19(17) permits civil detention only for disobedience of orders—not for preemptively restricting liberty on the assumption of default.

“Creating powers by implication that restrict fundamental rights is antithetical to the rule of law. Absence of explicit statutory authorization renders the Recovery Officer’s actions ultra vires.”

Fundamental Right to Travel Abroad Recognized by Supreme Court Since 1967

The High Court’s analysis drew strength from Supreme Court precedents:

• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836
  Recognized right to travel abroad as part of “personal liberty” under Article 21, and held that no such right can be curtailed without an enacted law.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
  Broadened the interpretation of “personal liberty” and insisted that any deprivation must pass the test of reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness, in addition to being authorized by law.
• Anurag v. Bank of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1160
  Held that DRT has no power to restrict foreign travel, and the right to travel cannot be made conditional without an express statutory provision.

The Court also relied on Delhi High Court’s decision in Kapil Puri v. ICICI Bank and Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Prafulchandra V. Patel, both of which had declared similar travel restrictions imposed by DRTs as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

“The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. The DRT Act does not confer any power—express or implied—to curtail it. Any restriction on liberty must come from an enacted law, not from administrative discretion,” the Court concluded.

₹50 Crore Condition Quashed as Unconstitutional

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the Recovery Officer’s condition was ultra vires, arbitrary, and unenforceable, and directed that Condition No. (ii) of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 be quashed.

“Though permission has been granted, it has been burdened with an unconstitutional condition that effectively nullifies the right itself. Such a condition cannot survive judicial scrutiny,” Justice Verma wrote.

The petitioner’s right to travel abroad was restored, subject only to the applicable laws that do not infringe on constitutional guarantees.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• DRT or its Recovery Officer has no power to restrain or condition foreign travel of a borrower or guarantor.
• Right to travel abroad is a component of personal liberty under Article 21, and can be curtailed only by enacted law.
• ₹50 crore deposit/surety requirement was held unconstitutional and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
• Writ petition maintainable despite alternate remedy, when fundamental rights are implicated.
• The Court reaffirmed that statutory bodies cannot create powers by implication to impose restrictions on personal freedoms.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2025