Delhi High Court Rejects UK Citizen’s Travel Request: Personal Liberty Must Align With Public Interest
In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a UK citizen seeking permission to travel abroad while facing an ongoing criminal case in India. The judgement reinforces the court’s consistent position that personal liberty, though fundamental, cannot override broader public interest and the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The petitioner had argued that professional commitments abroad required urgent travel, but the court noted that allowing foreign travel could potentially hamper the legal process. As per the court, an accused person must remain within the jurisdiction to ensure their availability for investigation and trial.
Key Highlights of the Verdict
1. Personal Liberty Is Not Absolute
The court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it cannot be misused to bypass due legal procedure.
2. Ongoing Criminal Case Requires Presence in India
The judge noted that allowing the petitioner to travel abroad could pose challenges in ensuring their return for hearings and cooperation with authorities.
3. Public Interest and Judicial Process Take Priority
The court reaffirmed that public interest and the smooth functioning of the justice system outweigh individual travel needs when criminal proceedings are underway.
4. No Exceptional Grounds Provided
The petitioner’s reasons, such as work obligations overseas, were not considered compelling enough to justify travel permission.
Why This Judgement Matters
This decision sets another clear precedent on how Indian courts balance personal rights with judicial integrity. It sends a strong message that individuals facing legal action cannot use international travel as grounds to delay or dilute proceedings.
For public policy observers and legal analysts, the judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accountability, preventing flight risks, and maintaining the credibility of due process.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. Why did the Delhi High Court reject the UK citizen’s travel request?
Because the individual is facing an ongoing criminal case and their presence is required for the investigation and trial. The court prioritised public interest over personal liberty.
2. Does Article 21 allow unrestricted foreign travel?
No. While Article 21 protects personal liberty, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when an individual is involved in legal proceedings.
3. Can the petitioner appeal this decision?
Yes, the petitioner can challenge the order before a higher bench or the Supreme Court, depending on legal strategy.
4. What factors do courts consider before granting travel permissions?
Courts review the nature of the case, severity of charges, possibility of absconding, cooperation with authorities, and reasons for travel.
5. How does this judgement affect future cases?
It reinforces the idea that courts will prioritise the judicial process over international travel unless exceptional grounds are provided.
Published on : 19th November
Published by : Selvi
Credit :Richa Sahay
www.vizzve.com || www.vizzveservices.com
Follow us on social media: Facebook || Linkedin || Instagram
🛡 Powered by Vizzve Financial
RBI-Registered Loan Partner | 10 Lakh+ Customers | ₹600 Cr+ Disbursed