Right to travel abroad of accused must be balanced with victim’s right to speedy trial: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that the fundamental right to travel abroad which comes under Article 21 cannot be viewed in isolation rather it needs to be balanced with the victim’s right to speedy trial.

A Division Bench comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the order of the Telangana High Court which permitted a businessman who is accused in a criminal case to travel to U.S. for medical treatment.

The case arose out of a complaint lodged in 2014 about the suspicious death of the complainant’s father after which an FIR was filed against the businessman and others of criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code.

The trial has not commenced even after ten years.

The Supreme Court held that he High Court was “indulgent” rather than judicially restrained in granting such permission despite the availability of comparable medical facilities in India.

The Court noted that the accused has been filing successive petitions, obtaining interim protection, and withdrawing those before final adjudication, while leaving the country on a suspended lookout circular without seeking the permission of the court. Therefore, the accused cannot claim that the condition restraining travel amounts to an infringement of fundamental rights.

In 2016, he obtained an order suspending the lookout circular and left India in 2017, returning only in April 2025 when he was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in Hyderabad. After that, he sought his passport and permission to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment, stating that he had suffered two brain strokes in 2023.

Now, the SC held that the HC erred in permitting the travel.

The Bench observed that “While Article 21 undoubtedly guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. 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”.