The Bombay High Court has clarified that while the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute right when weighed against persistent financial default, deliberate evasion of foreign judicial proceedings, and demonstrable flight risk. This judgment establishes a critical balance between personal liberty and creditor rights in cross-border debt disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pradeep Agarwal, sought permission to travel internationally from January to December 2026 across Africa, Europe, the UAE, USA, China, and South America. His request arose during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 937 of 2022, which challenged the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) by the Union of India at the behest of Bank of Baroda. The LOC had been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in April 2024, but the Supreme Court, in August 2024, directed petitioners in such cases to seek prior permission from the Bombay High Court for international travel pending final adjudication of the SLPs.
Procedural History
- January 2022: Writ Petition filed challenging the LOC issued by Bank of Baroda.
- April 2024: Division Bench of Bombay High Court quashed all LOCs issued by banks, holding them violative of Articles 14 and 21.
- August 2024: Supreme Court stayed the effect of the Bombay High Court’s judgment and directed petitioners to seek travel permission from the High Court on a case-by-case basis.
- August 2024 to September 2025: Petitioner obtained six prior orders permitting international travel, all without opposition from Bank of Baroda.
- February 2026: Petitioner filed this Interim Application seeking permission for one-year unrestricted travel; Bank of Baroda opposed for the first time, disclosing critical facts about a 2018 Hong Kong decree.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) permission to travel abroad between 1 January 2026 and 31 December 2026 with multiple entries and exits; and (2) directions to immigration authorities to permit his departure without interference.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 can be denied when the petitioner has defaulted on a massive foreign debt, deliberately absconded from the jurisdiction where the debt was incurred, and shown no bonafide intent to repay, despite having previously been permitted to travel without restriction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the precedent set by the Bombay High Court’s April 2024 judgment quashing LOCs and the Supreme Court’s directive to consider travel applications on merit. He emphasized his consistent compliance with prior travel permissions - returning to India each time without breach. He cited a 2025 consultancy offer from Indo Sino Trade PTE Ltd. (Singapore) requiring extensive international travel for business development, and argued that the Hong Kong decree was unenforceable in India under Section 13 and Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that denying travel amounted to punitive detention without trial and violated his livelihood rights.
For the Respondent
The Bank of Baroda submitted that the petitioner had deliberately abandoned his Hong Kong business after defaulting on a USD 20 million loan facility, failed to appear before the Hong Kong Court, and allowed an ex parte decree of USD 19.3 million to be passed against him in 2018. The Bank revealed that the petitioner had accepted a One Time Settlement offer in 2019 but failed to pay even the first installment. It further argued that the petitioner held controlling stakes in other companies, had no significant assets in India, and had defaulted on other bank loans, making him a high flight risk. The Bank contended that the petitioner was exploiting procedural leniency to evade accountability.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the foundational principle that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21, as affirmed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. However, it emphasized that this right is not absolute and must yield when balanced against compelling public and private interests.
"The Applicant has not demonstrated any bonafides whatsoever in repaying the amount of default. In the entire application or even in the rejoinder there is no denial that there was default committed by his company in Hong Kong and that he was guarantor to such huge amount."
The Court noted that the petitioner had never sought to challenge or settle the Hong Kong decree despite its existence since 2018, nor had he ever attempted to appear before the Hong Kong Court. His repeated international travel over the past four years, while ignoring a judicially recognized debt of over Rs. 242 crores, demonstrated a pattern of evasion. The Court found the consultancy documents uncorroborated and lacking in contractual annexures, rendering them insufficient to establish a legitimate professional necessity.
The Court further held that the Bank’s failure to raise these facts in prior applications did not estop it from doing so now, as the circumstances had materially changed with the disclosure of the ex parte decree and the petitioner’s non-compliance with the 2019 settlement. The Court rejected the argument that the Bank was using travel denial as a pressure tactic, observing that the petitioner’s conduct itself constituted an abuse of process.
The absence of any immovable property in India, the petitioner’s prior residence and business in Hong Kong, and his multiple defaults across public sector banks collectively established a high probability of permanent departure. The Court concluded that permitting travel under these conditions would risk irreparable loss of public funds and undermine the integrity of cross-border financial accountability.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application was rejected. The Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 21 is subject to reasonable restrictions when there is a demonstrable flight risk, deliberate evasion of foreign judicial proceedings, and a sustained pattern of financial default without any bonafide effort at repayment. The petitioner was denied permission to travel abroad for the requested period.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Travel Permission Is Not Entitled by Default
- Practitioners must now demonstrate more than past compliance; they must show ongoing bonafide intent to repay debts and concrete, verifiable professional necessity for travel.
- Courts will scrutinize the genuineness of employment or consultancy offers abroad, especially when unsupported by executed contracts or financial records.
Foreign Judgments Can Trigger Flight Risk Assessments
- Even unenforceable foreign decrees, if obtained due to deliberate non-appearance, can be used to establish moral and legal culpability in domestic travel applications.
- Courts may consider the totality of conduct - including abandonment of jurisdiction and settlement breaches - as evidence of bad faith, irrespective of technical enforceability under Section 44A CPC.
Public Sector Debt Demands Stricter Scrutiny
-
When public funds are involved, courts are more likely to prioritize creditor protection over personal liberty where the debtor has no assets, no repayment history, and multiple defaults.
-
Practitioners representing debtors must proactively offer credible security, repayment plans, or asset pledges to counter flight risk allegations.
-
Do not assume prior travel permissions create a vested right; each application is decided on fresh facts.
-
Always submit authenticated, detailed documentation for overseas engagements - verbal assurances or unsigned letters are insufficient.
-
In cases involving foreign judgments, advise clients to proactively engage with the foreign court or initiate settlement negotiations before seeking travel relief.
