The Delhi High Court allowed a PhD scholar to travel to the United Kingdom for an academic conference despite pending charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, holding that mere allegations do not curtail the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. The Court permitted travel from 2 November 2026 to 1 December 2026 subject to safeguards including a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and an undertaking not to seek asylum.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Natasha Narwal, filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.M.C. 7711/2026 and CRL.M.C. 7724/2026) seeking to set aside the orders dated 6 October 2026 passed by the ASJ (Special Judge), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts in Sessions Case 163/2020 and Sessions Case 354/2022, whereby her applications to travel to the United Kingdom from 2 November 2026 to 1 December 2026 to attend an academic conference and meet her PhD supervisors were rejected.
Key Facts
- FIR 50/2020 (year 2020) was registered with PS Jafrabad under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 283, 332, 333, 323, 307, 302, 427, 120B, 34, 188; Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 3, 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
- FIR 59/2020 dated 6 March 2020 was registered with PS Special Cell under IPC sections 120B, 109, 114, 124A, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 201, 212, 295, 302, 307, 341, 353, 395, 420, 427, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471, 34; Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; Sections 13, 16, 17, 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA); and Sections 3, 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
- The petitioner was granted bail in FIR 50/2020 by the Trial Court vide order dated 17 September 2020.
- In FIR 59/2020, the Division Bench of this Court granted bail on 15 June 2021, imposing a condition that the petitioner surrender her passport before the Trial Court and not travel abroad without prior permission.
- After obtaining bail, the petitioner was admitted to a PhD programme at the School of Law, University of Warwick, UK on 2 October 2023.
- Her paper titled “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction” was accepted for presentation at the Twenty-Third Annual Historical Materialism Conference to be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London from 5-8 November 2026.
- A letter dated 21 September 2026 from her PhD supervisors invited her to appear in-person for supervisory meetings, present her work, and participate in doctoral training on campus.
- The petitioner deposited her passport with the Trial Court and applied for permission to travel to the UK from 2 November 2026 to 1 December 2026 to attend the conference and meet supervisors.
- The respondent opposed the application, and the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 6 October 2026 dismissed it primarily on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner under the UAPA.
- The petitioner’s brother, residing in Haryana, is willing to stand as a surety.
- The petitioner has close family residing in the National Capital Region (NCR).
- The trial in the underlying cases is likely to take considerable time, and the petitioner has not violated any bail conditions.
Procedural History
- FIR 50/2020 registered (year 2020) - exact date not specified.
- FIR 59/2020 dated 6 March 2020.
- 17 September 2020: Bail granted in FIR 50/2020 by Trial Court.
- 15 June 2021: Bail granted in FIR 59/2020 by Division Bench of High Court, with passport surrender and no-travel-without-permission condition.
- 2 October 2023: Petitioner admitted to PhD programme, University of Warwick.
- 21 September 2026: Letter from PhD supervisors received.
- 2 November 2026 - 1 December 2026: Proposed travel period.
- 6 October 2026: Trial Court (ASJ Shahdara) dismissed travel application.
- 16 October 2026: Judgment of the High Court delivered.
- Directions: travel permitted 2 November 2026 - 1 December 2026; undertaking to return by 2 December 2026; personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with surety of brother; passport to be surrendered within 48 hours of return; Look-Out Circular (LoC) suspended for the travel period.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 6 October 2026 and permission to travel to the United Kingdom for the stated period, along with suitable safeguards to ensure her return and compliance with bail conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner’s right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution can be denied solely on the basis of pending charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), or whether suitable safeguards can permit such travel.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and cannot be curtailed without procedure established by law.
- Charges are yet to be framed; bail conditions have not been violated; the petitioner has been on bail since 2021.
- The academic purpose is genuine: presentation of her paper at an international conference and in-person supervisory meetings are essential for PhD qualification.
- She offered undertakings: return by 2 December 2026, no asylum application, and no comment on the merits of the ongoing cases.
- She proposed a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with the surety of her brother residing in Haryana.
- Virtual alternatives do not suffice for the required academic engagement, such as access to offline archival collections and face-to-face supervisory sessions.
For the Respondent
- The allegations under UAPA are serious, encompassing offences such as waging war, conspiracy, and terrorist acts.
- The United Kingdom has stringent extradition laws; if the petitioner sought asylum, retrieval would be difficult.
- The academic objectives could be achieved virtually, rendering travel unnecessary.
- Allowing travel risks undermining the investigation and trial proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by recalling the principle from Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that “the right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that no person shall be deprived of the same except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” > “The right to travel abroad is a facet of fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that no person shall be deprived of the same except in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
It observed that the Trial Court’s denial rested solely on the existence of serious allegations under the UAPA, without considering whether the petitioner’s right could be regulated by appropriate safeguards. The Court noted that the petitioner had been on bail since 2021, had not breached any bail condition, and had deep roots in society through her family in the NCR.
The academic purpose was found to be legitimate and time-bound; the supervisors’ letter emphasized the necessity of in-person participation for thesis qualification and access to offline resources. The Court balanced the State’s interest in ensuring the petitioner’s availability for trial against the individual’s liberty interest, concluding that suitable conditions could mitigate any risk of non-return or asylum seeking.
Accordingly, the Court held that the right to travel abroad is not absolute but may be permitted with safeguards such as undertakings to return, a personal bond, surrender of passport, and suspension of the LoC.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 6 October 2026, permitted her to travel to the United Kingdom from 2 November 2026 to 1 December 2026, directed her to furnish an undertaking to return by 2 December 2026 and not to apply for asylum or comment on the ongoing cases, ordered a cumulative personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with the surety of her brother, required her to surrender the passport within 48 hours of return to India, and directed the Trial Court to release the passport immediately and to keep the LoC suspended for the travel period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Travel Not Absolute but Protected
Mere allegations or pending charges under statutes like the UAPA do not automatically curtail the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. Courts must undertake an individualized assessment, weighing liberty interests against State interests, rather than imposing blanket bans.
Safeguards Over Blanket Bans
When permitting travel despite criminal proceedings, courts may impose conditions such as undertakings to return, prohibitions on asylum applications, restraints on commenting on pending cases, and personal bonds with sureties. In this case, a bond of ₹1,00,000 and surrender of passport within 48 hours of return were deemed sufficient.
Academic Purpose Qualifies as Legitimate Ground
Travel for essential academic activities - such as presenting a paper at an international conference, attending in-person supervisory meetings, and accessing offline archival resources - can constitute a valid ground for granting permission, especially when virtual alternatives are inadequate for the required scholarly engagement.
