The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reminded trial courts that in an age where travel has become part of daily life, not a distant luxury, judges must approach requests from accused persons to travel abroad with balance and realism—not rigid suspicion.
Justice Sumeet Goel, delivering a detailed order, said that globalization has transformed mobility into a “quotidian necessity,” and the judiciary cannot remain confined in an “ivory tower” when interpreting the right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right, the Court observed, has evolved into an inseparable part of life and liberty.
Still, the Court cautioned that the right to travel abroad is not an unrestricted license. It must be weighed against the public interest and the justice system’s need to ensure an accused’s presence for trial.
On common objections raised by prosecutors—fear of flight or delay in proceedings—the judge emphasized the importance of nuance. The term “likely to flee,” the Court said, cannot rest on speculative fear. It must be based on reasonable probability supported by tangible material. Stretching “likely” too far, the Court warned, would create an unfair barrier to travel permissions.
To address concerns about delays, Justice Goel suggested that courts could require the accused to submit an affidavit allowing the trial to continue in their absence, represented by counsel, while remaining bound by the proceedings and evidence recorded.
The Court called for a “delicate balancing act” between the individual’s freedom and society’s interest in ensuring justice. Factors such as the gravity of charges, the accused’s roots and credibility, the purpose of travel, and readiness to provide security should all guide judicial discretion.
In the case before it, the High Court overturned a lower court’s refusal to let the petitioner travel abroad, noting that he had been allowed to do so earlier and the case had been pending since 2018. The permission was granted with appropriate conditions.
