Right To Travel Abroad Not Absolute; Must Be Balanced With Right To Speedy Trial & Societal Interest: Supreme Court

"A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the appellant to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice, on the other," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not absolute and must be balanced against the interest of society and the right to a speedy trial.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that while personal liberty is of great importance, reasonable restrictions can be placed on it to ensure the effective administration of criminal justice.

The Court was dealing with a challenge against a Telangana High Court order which had permitted an accused, charged under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the IPC, to travel to the United States for medical treatment. The Apex Court noted that the High Court had been "indulgent" towards the accused despite his history of delaying the trial and evading the criminal process for several years.

The matter originated from a 2014 complaint filed by the appellant regarding the suspicious death of his father, leading to an FIR under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Though a chargesheet was filed in 2016, the trial remained stalled at the committal stage for nearly a decade, largely due to successive petitions filed by the accused. After the High Court suspended a Look Out Circular in 2016, the accused left India in 2017 and only returned in 2025, upon which he was arrested.

The primary question before the Court was whether the High Court was justified in permitting the accused to travel abroad for medical treatment while the trial was pending. The Court was also called upon to determine the extent to which the right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be restricted in the interest of a speedy trial and the effective administration of justice.

Accused’s Conduct and Delay in Trial

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the "pro-active role" of the accused in seeking judicial intervention at every turn to impede the progress of the trial. The bench noted that the respondent had initiated multifarious proceedings and often withdrew them only after securing interim protections. Such conduct, the Court observed, raised serious doubts regarding his bona fides and suggested an attempt to evade the criminal process.

High Court's Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction

The bench found the High Court's decision to allow the respondent to travel back to the USA to be "unsustainable." The High Court had relied on the respondent’s medical exigencies—specifically two brain strokes suffered in 2023—and his appearance before the Magistrate on twelve previous occasions. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to exercise necessary judicial restraint in its revisional jurisdiction.

Domestic Medical Facilities Comparable To Foreign Countries

The Court rejected the argument that the accused's medical condition necessitated travel to the USA. It observed that the medical facilities available in India are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country. The bench noted that the High Court permitted foreign travel even though all necessary medical facilities exist domestically, which the Court deemed an act of undue indulgence.

"High Court Was Indulgent Towards The Accused"

The bench remarked that the High Court, instead of exercising judicial restraint, was indulgent towards the respondent. It held that the trajectory of the proceedings, the conduct of the respondent, and the nature of his ailment did not justify allowing him to leave the country when the trial had already been delayed for ten years.

Balancing Article 21 with Societal Interest

Discussing the scope of Article 21, the Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of personal liberty. While Article 21 guarantees the right to travel abroad, this right cannot be viewed in isolation. The Court relied on the precedent in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI (2007) to reiterate that no right can be absolute and a balance must be struck between individual liberty and the interest of society.

"Right To Travel Cannot Be Viewed In Isolation"

The Court observed that the right to travel abroad must be weighed against the larger societal interest in ensuring that criminal justice is administered effectively. It held that the interest of the society and the right of the complainant to a speedy trial are equally important considerations that a court must account for while deciding on the liberty of an accused.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and the Sessions Court's order, restoring the Magistrate's original direction. The Court clarified that while the respondent is not required to deposit his passport, he shall not be entitled to fly out of the country without the express permission of the Sessions Court. The bench further encouraged the lower courts to expedite the process of committal.

The Court concluded that the Magistrate was justified in releasing the passport while requiring the accused to seek specific permission for any foreign travel. The bench directed the civil, police, and airport administrations to coordinate and ensure that the respondent does not leave the country without the express authorization of the competent Sessions Court.

Date of Decision: June 4, 2026