The Supreme Court has ruled that the right of an accused person to travel abroad can be curtailed as no fundamental right is absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the concurrent orders passed by a Telangana sessions court and the high court, which had permitted the accused, a US citizen, to return to that country. The accused was facing prosecution in connection with the death of a man in 2014. He was arrested in 2025 after he landed in India.
The trial court magistrate had directed the accused to surrender his passport. However, the sessions court had, on a revision application filed by the accused, set aside the magistrate’s order. The high court, on an appeal by the state and the deceased’s son and complainant Seesa Santosh, refused to interfere with the sessions court order. Aggrieved, Santosh filed the appeal for quashing the orders.
Disposing of the appeal, the apex court rejected the accused’s argument that surrendering his passport would amount to an unjustified curtailment of the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21.
The top court noted that the trial in the case was yet to start despite the filing of the chargesheet in 2016. “The right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21.... A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of respondent no. 2... and the right of the appellant to a speedy trial,” Justice Datta said.
The bench said the accused should “not be entitled to fly out of the country” without the permission of the sessions court.