Topic
Delhi HC struck down trial court's prior permission condition for foreign travel, holding it cannot stand without bail, cognizance or summons; instead, two weeks' prior intimation suffices. This shields Article 21 travel rights for those not yet arrested or summoned.
An FIR is registered against you, or a criminal case is grinding on in a trial court, and you need to travel abroad for work, study, a wedding, or medical treatment. The fear is automatic: surely a pending case means you cannot leave the country. The legal position is more reassu
CAT Ernakulam rules that the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 cannot be restricted merely due to pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Satish Chandra Verma to affirm that personal travel leave cannot be denied without a substantive finding of guilt, impacting government employees facing similar procedural hurdles.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on a pending FIR; Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act mandates court cognizance before restricting travel rights under Article 21. This clarifies that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily block passports during police investigations, ensuring procedural fairness for applicants facing criminal allegations.
Bombay High Court holds that right to travel abroad under Article 21 is not absolute when petitioner has defaulted on massive debts, absconded from foreign jurisdiction, and shown no bonafide intent to repay.
Bombay High Court holds that accused's fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed merely due to alleged large-scale tax fraud without evidence of flight risk.