The Supreme Court of India has reiterated an important constitutional principle that the right to travel abroad, though protected as a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be viewed in isolation from the rights of victims and the broader interests of the criminal justice system.

According to a recent report, the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Telangana High Court that had permitted an accused businessman to travel to the United States for medical treatment. The case arose from criminal proceedings linked to a complaint regarding a suspicious death and allegations of criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide.

The Supreme Court observed that while personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, no fundamental right is absolute. Courts are required to balance competing rights and interests before granting permission to an accused person facing criminal proceedings to leave the country. The Bench emphasized that the right of victims and their families to see criminal proceedings concluded within a reasonable time is also an integral aspect of Article 21.

The Court reportedly noted that the criminal case had remained pending for nearly a decade and that the trial had not yet commenced. In such circumstances, the conduct of the accused and the prolonged delay in the judicial process became relevant considerations while evaluating a request for foreign travel.

The judgment highlights the increasing judicial recognition of victims’ rights within the criminal justice framework. Traditionally, discussions around criminal procedure often focused on the rights of the accused. However, modern jurisprudence increasingly acknowledges that victims and their families are also entitled to fairness, dignity, and timely justice.

The Supreme Court further observed that courts must carefully weigh individual liberty against societal interests. Permission to travel abroad cannot be granted mechanically and must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Factors such as the stage of proceedings, seriousness of allegations, risk of delay, and potential impact on the administration of justice may all become relevant.


The ruling serves as an important reminder that constitutional rights operate within a framework of competing public interests. Courts are therefore required to strike a balance that protects liberty while ensuring the effective functioning of the criminal justice system.

The decision is likely to be cited in future cases involving requests by accused persons to travel abroad during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly reported court proceedings and is intended solely for informational and educational purposes.

Permission to Travel Abroad