Can an Accused Claim an Unrestricted Right to Travel Abroad? Supreme Court Explains Limits Under Article 21

The Supreme Court recently observed that while the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute right. Courts must balance it against a complainant's right to a speedy trial and the larger public interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a Telangana High Court order dated October 28, 2025, which had permitted accused Gunigati Ravinder Rao to travel to the United States. Court restored a Magistrate's order that had declined to treat the release of his passport as permission to travel abroad.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Seesa Santosh regarding the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of his father in 2014. An FIR was subsequently registered, and a charge sheet was filed against Rao under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC (corresponding to Section 108 and 61 of the BNS, respectively).

Rao had approached the high court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. He had also sought permission to travel abroad, but that request was initially rejected.

Also Read| Right To Travel Abroad Integral To Article 21; Bombay HC Sets Aside LOC Issued In SFIO Probe

However, after he failed to appear before the trial court, a lookout circular (LoC) was issued against him. Rao again approached the high court, which suspended the LoC. He subsequently left the country.

During this period, another FIR was registered against him. Upon his return to India, he was arrested at Hyderabad airport. He then moved the high court once again, which allowed him to travel back to the USA.

Why did the Supreme Court disagree with the high court?

Counsel for the appellant argued that Rao should not be allowed to travel abroad until the trial concluded. It was submitted that the condition requiring him to deposit his passport was necessary to secure his presence and ensure the smooth conduct of the criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, Rao's counsel contended that requiring him to surrender his passport amounted to an unjustified restriction on his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. It was also argued that he had suffered two brain strokes in 2023 and was undergoing treatment in the USA.

The Supreme Court noted that the high court had allowed Rao to travel abroad after the case was committed for trial, primarily because he had appeared before the Magistrate on 12 previous occasions and required medical treatment in the United States.

However, the Bench observed that nearly ten years had passed since the filing of the charge sheet and yet the trial had not begun.

"Despite the lapse of nearly 10 years since the filing of the charge sheet, the trial is yet to commence. Though delay in criminal proceedings cannot invariably be attributed to the accused alone, the chronology of events in the present case does evince the pro-active role of the respondent no. 2 in seeking judicial intervention at every turn," Court said.

Also Read| Right To Hold Passport, Travel Abroad Integral Part Of Right To Personal Liberty Under Article 21: Delhi HC

Court found that since the registration of the FIR, Rao had initiated multiple proceedings before the high court and secured interim protections from time to time, which had impeded the progress of the trial.

It further noted that he had often withdrawn such proceedings before they were finally decided, but only after obtaining interim relief. According to the Bench, this raised serious doubts about his bona fides.

Court also took note of allegations that Rao had misused the 2016 interim order suspending the lookout circular by leaving the country without obtaining permission from the court and thereby evading the criminal process.

What did the Court say about the right to travel abroad under Article 21?

Rejecting the argument that restrictions on foreign travel violated Article 21, the Bench said that the right to a speedy trial is also a fundamental right protected under the same constitutional provision.

"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," Court said.

Also Read| Right to Long-Term Travel Abroad Cannot Be Denied Solely Due to Pending FIRs Without Conviction: Delhi HC

The Bench also observed that the medical facilities available in India were comparable to those available abroad and held that the high court had been overly indulgent in permitting Rao to travel to the USA.

What directions did the Supreme Court issue?

Taking an overall view of the matter, Court held that the Magistrate's order dated May 7, 2025 was justified and did not warrant interference. It accordingly set aside the orders of both the high court and the sessions judge.

At the same time, Court clarified that Rao would be free to approach the Sessions Court in future if he genuinely needed permission to travel abroad after committal of the case. Any such application, it said, should be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, and the sessions court would be at liberty to impose appropriate conditions if permission were granted.

The Bench also directed that the civil authorities, police and airport administration coordinate with one another to ensure that Rao does not leave the country without the express permission of the sessions court.

Court clarified that the observations made in the judgment should not be treated as findings on the merits of the criminal case.

Case Title: Seesa Santhosh Vs The State of Telangana And Anr

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma 

Date of Judgment: June 4, 2026