The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, set aside the order of a trial court that had denied an accused person permission to travel abroad. The High Court held that the refusal, based solely on the social or celebratory character of the proposed visit, was not sustainable in law.
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, who authored the judgment, observed that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that this right is not confined to situations of urgency or fundamental necessity but extends to personal and family matters, including visits that are social or celebratory in character.
The Bench noted that the trial court’s order had imposed a blanket restriction on the accused’s travel, treating the nature of the visit as a decisive factor for denial. The High Court found this approach to be overly restrictive and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of liberty. It reasoned that any restriction on the right to travel must be reasonable, proportionate and based on legitimate grounds; merely labelling a trip as social or celebratory does not satisfy that requirement.
The Court further clarified that the authority granting permission must consider the individual circumstances of the applicant, including the purpose of the visit, the duration of stay, and any potential impact on the ongoing criminal proceedings. However, the mere fact that the visit is intended for a family celebration or a social gathering cannot, by itself, justify a refusal.
In setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court directed the lower court to reconsider the application for permission in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The Court instructed that the reconsideration must be undertaken afresh, without relying on the social or celebratory nature of the visit as a ground for denial.
The judgment underscores that the protection afforded by Article 21 is not limited to circumstances of extreme hardship or urgent need. By affirming that personal liberty encompasses the freedom to undertake travel for familial and social reasons, the Court has broadened the scope of the right in the context of criminal proceedings.
Legal observers note that the decision provides clarity for lower courts and authorities tasked with evaluating travel requests from accused persons. It signals that any restriction must be anchored in specific, concrete concerns such as the risk of evasion of justice or interference with the investigation, rather than a generalized disapproval of the trip’s purpose.
The High Court’s ruling also reinforces the principle that constitutional rights are to be interpreted liberally, especially when they pertain to personal liberty. The Court’s approach aligns with earlier jurisprudence that treats restrictions on liberty as exceptions that must be justified by compelling state interest.
In disposing of the matter, the Court made it clear that the order of the trial court was unsustainable and set it aside accordingly. The judgment does not comment on the merits of the underlying criminal case, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the travel permission.
The decision is expected to influence future applications for travel permission by persons facing criminal charges, ensuring that the assessment is grounded in objective criteria rather than the subjective nature of the visit’s purpose.