Inclusion of Right to Travel Abroad

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) modified bail conditions imposed on the wife of former Jharkhand MLA Kamlesh Kumar Singh, permitting her to travel abroad for treatment of advanced liver disease while balancing trial requirements. 

What was the Background of Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner was an accused in a disproportionate assets case related to allegations against her husband, former Jharkhand MLA and Minister Kamlesh Kumar Singh. 
• She had been granted regular bail on 13 May 2014 in B.A. No. 3581 of 2014, with conditions requiring deposit of her passport and restricting foreign travel. 
• The petitioner, aged about 58 years, was suffering from a serious and life-threatening liver disease. 
• A liver biopsy conducted at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, on 25 June 2025 revealed Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B, an advanced stage of chronic liver disease. 
• The medical reports confirmed that substage-4B cirrhosis is a medically recognised pre-cancerous stage. 
• The petitioner's close relatives were residing in the USA and UK, and she wished to travel to either country for better treatment. 
• The petitioner had been cooperating with the trial since 2014 and had not violated any bail condition. 
• Her passport had been deposited in 2014 pursuant to the bail order. 
• Out of more than 100 witnesses in the case, only 46 had been examined so far, indicating slow progress in the trial. 
• The CBI opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was accused in a disproportionate assets case and the travel restriction had been imposed by a coordinate Bench while granting bail. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court took note of medical reports from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, a reputed institution, confirming the petitioner's serious medical condition. 
• The medical reports established that the petitioner was suffering from cirrhosis with probable underlying autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cholangitis overlap, and Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B. 
• The Court recorded that there was no allegation that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the trial or had attempted to influence any witness. 
• The Court placed reliance on Supreme Court decisions in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India regarding the fundamental nature of the right to travel abroad. 
• The Court observed that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right and forms part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court held that considering the petitioner's advanced stage 4B cirrhosis and the fundamental right to travel abroad as established by the Supreme Court, the bail order dated 13.05.2014 could be modified. 
• The Court directed release of the petitioner's passport in her favour. 
• The Court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to file an undertaking before the concerned court for each proposed foreign visit, specifying the period of travel and date of return to India. 
• The petitioner was directed to inform the court upon her return from each trip. 
• The Court clarified that the passport shall be released subject to the condition that the petitioner shall seek prior permission of the concerned court for every instance of travel abroad. 

What is Right to Travel Abroad?  

• About:  
  • The right to travel abroad is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India.  
  • However, it has been interpreted as a part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Relevant Provisions: 
  • Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. 
  • Article 19(1)(d): This article guarantees freedom of movement, which is interpreted to include the right to travel within the country. 
  • Article 19(1)(a): This article guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which can be interpreted to include the right to travel abroad for educational, cultural, or professional purposes. 
• Case Laws: 
  • Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi (1967):  
    • The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the government cannot refuse to issue or impound a passport without a valid procedure established by law.  
    • The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the government to restore the petitioners' passports and passport facilities. 
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):  
    • In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad.  
    • The court also ruled that any procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of their personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.