New Delhi: Asserting that courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach, rather than a hyper-technical one, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last week allowed a Karnal-based man facing trial for offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy to travel abroad.
“The right to travel abroad has, through the efflux of time and exigencies of modern life, become so profoundly entrenched and inextricably interwoven with the daily affairs of an individual that it is now an indispensable facet and ineluctable corollary of the fundamental right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed Friday.
The court, however, cautioned that such a right does not come without limitations and isn’t absolute in nature. “The right of an individual to travel abroad is not an unbridled licence and is amenable to curtailment under the aegis of judicial scrutiny,” it added.
The court was acting on a 2018 case where one cheating and forgery accused, Jonty Vinay Chhag, had challenged a 5 September order of a Karnal court denying him permission to travel abroad.
The high court noted that on earlier occasions, like November 2023 and June 2024, the accused had travelled to Doha and Sharjah, after seeking the court’s permission. He had also come back in time, it observed.
A year later, when Chhag attempted to travel once again for business purposes, he was denied permission by the lower court. That’s when he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking permission for the trip.
Chhag’s case was that as a businessman, he was frequently required to travel to different countries for business meetings, which are fundamental to his business activities.
The Superintendent of Police had opposed his plea, saying there was a chance of his absconding from trial in the case he was accused in.
What high court ruled
Underlining Article 21, or the right to life, as one of the most celebrated and transcendent fundamental rights, the court said: “It is, in essence, the foundational matrix from which numerous other subsidiary rights emanate, all of which are pivotal for an individual to endure.”
However, it added that it is important to have a delicate and judicial balancing act between the fundamental right of the accused to pursue his legitimate affairs, while the collective interests of society are ensured, and presentation of the accused before the trial court.
Several competing factors like the gravity of the allegations, or the accused’s background or roots need to be looked at, the court said, adding that duration of trial, willingness to furnish security are also weighed in, while making sure this right is not turned into an “abuse of process”.
Although there is no exhaustive set of guidelines to govern this process, the court said that even coming up with guidelines would be futile, as it would amount to crystallising a judicial discretion, which the legislature left undetermined for reasons best known to them.
The court observed that the law doesn’t contemplate that a citizen be made to suffer the technical formalities when the ends of justice can be reached without “compromising procedural propriety”. Here, the court added that rather than adopting a “hyper-technical” approach, it will, in the larger interests of justice, entertain the man’s petition and allow his plea for foreign travel.
“The importance of a business meeting is required to be assessed by the persons attending such meeting,” the court said, noting that since there was nothing to indicate the accused would abscond from the process of justice, the plea ought to be allowed.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Don’t rely on AI, Google mid-argument—Punjab & Haryana HC warning divides legal practitioners