Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Right to travel abroad is not absolute and must be robustly balanced

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Another [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 628, decided on June 4, 2026], the Supreme Court of India adjudicated a significant constitutional and criminal controversy concerning the boundaries of an accused person’s fundamental right to travel abroad for medical treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution.The appeal was preferred by a complainant against a revisional order of the Telangana High Court, which had permitted an accused person (a US citizen facing prosecution for serious offenses including abetment of suicide) to fly to the United States for medical rehabilitation after suffering two brain strokes.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restraining the accused from leaving the country without explicit prior judicial authorization.The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the High Court had been “indulgent” rather than judicially restrained.The Apex Court held that while Article 21 encompasses personal liberty and the right to travel abroad, this right is not absolute and must be robustly balanced against a complainant’s co-equal right to a speedy trial and the broader societal interest in the effective administration of criminal justice.Since comparable and equivalent medical facilities exist domestically in India, and given the decade-long delay in the trial caused by the accused’s strategic litigious interventions, an unrestricted right to leave the country could not be granted.

1. Factual Matrix and Trajectory of Litigation

  • The Originating Offense: On October 12, 2014, the appellant lodged a criminal complaint regarding the suspicious, unnatural death of his father.Following initial investigations under Section 174 of the CrPC, an FIR and subsequent charge-sheet were formalized in 2016 for serious offenses under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
  • The Accused’s Status and Delays: The respondent (accused No. 2) is a citizen of the United States of America whose family and primary business reside there.Despite a lapse of nearly ten years since the filing of the charge-sheet, the trial had stagnated at the committal stage.The record indicated a consistent pattern where the respondent proactively filed successive petitions before the High Court to obtain interim protections and subsequently withdrew them before final adjudication, effectively impeding the trial’s timeline.
  • The Passport Conflict: After being arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and subsequently released on bail, the respondent moved the Magistrate seeking the return of his passport.The Magistrate allowed the application on May 7, 2025, without granting explicit travel clearance.On revision, the Sessions Court reversed the directive, ordering the deposit of the passport to secure the accused’s presence and recommending passport restrictions under the Passports Act, 1967.
  • The High Court’s Intervention: The High Court subsequently set aside the Sessions Court’s order and permitted the respondent to travel to the USA for six months, citing that he had appeared before the lower court on twelve previous occasions and required medical treatment for two brain strokes suffered in 2023.

2. Core Legal Issues Formulated

The Supreme Court structured its review around two primary inquiries:

  1. Whether an accused facing prosecution for serious criminal offenses can claim an unrestricted fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 on grounds of medical necessity.
  2. How courts must execute the structural balancing test under Article 21 when individual personal liberty conflicts with the right to a speedy trial and public justice administration.

3. Legal Analysis &Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court systematically evaluated the statutory and constitutional mechanics of the right to travel under criminal cloud, establishing the following precedents:

A. The Multi-Dimensional Framework of Article 21

The Court clarified that the right to personal liberty, which explicitly includes the right to travel abroad as a general proposition, cannot be viewed in isolation or in a vacuum.The right to a speedy trial is an equally vital, integral facet of Article 21 that belongs to the victim and the community.A structural balance must always be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused on one hand, and the larger societal interest in ensuring that the criminal justice machinery is not paralyzed on the other.

B. Medical Necessity vs. Domestic Sufficiency

The Bench strongly rebuked the High Court’s lenient approach, ruling that a plea of medical necessity to go abroad cannot be accepted at face value when equivalent medical capabilities exist domestically.The Court observed that medical facilities in India are highly advanced and entirely comparable with any facility available in any foreign country.Because the respondent failed to prove that his post-stroke treatment was uniquely unavailable in India, forcing a travel window that risked his non-return to trial was judicially un-executable.

C. Accused Conduct and Trial Interruption Analysis

The Court established that while general delays in trials cannot always be attributed solely to defendants, an accused who actively leverages judicial processes to delay proceedings loses the equitable leverage for travel indulgences.Utilizing a suspended Look-Out Circular to leave the country without express leave, combined with successive abandoned petitions, evinces an intent to stall rather than cooperate, justifying tighter restrictions on foreign travel.

4. Decretal Directions & Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued the following structural mandates:

  1. Orders Overturned: The impugned judgment and order of the Telangana High Court and the underlying order of the Sessions Court are both set aside.The original order of the Magistrate dated May 7, 2025, is restored.
  2. Passport Retention with Travel Restraint: The respondent is not required to deposit his physical passport; however, he is strictly restrained from leaving the country or flying out of India without the express, prior permission of the Sessions Court.
  3. Appellate Window: The respondent retains the liberty to apply for travel clearance before the Sessions Court only after the formal committal of the criminal case is concluded.
  4. Administrative Coordination: The civil, police, and airport administration authorities are directed to actively coordinate with one another to ensure the respondent does not breach this travel embargo.
  5. Expedited Committal: The lower courts are encouraged to expedite the committal process to prevent further delays in the commencement of the trial.All observations recorded are limited to the propriety of travel restrictions and do not constitute final findings on the merits of the case.

2026 INSC 628

Seesa Santosh V. State of Telangana And Anr. (04.06.2026)

2026 INSC 628 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Bribes Carry No Immunity: Inapplicability of Section 17A Prior Approval to Demands for Illegal Gratification

October 18, 2026 No Comments

This appeal arose from a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which dismissed the appellant’s criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The appellant, a police constable, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on behalf of a Superintendent of Police. The primary contention raised by the appellant was that the inquiry and investigation were vitiated for want of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of the High Court and the Trial Court. The Court held that Section 17A of the PC Act—which mandates prior approval before investigating a public servant—applies strictly to recommendations made or decisions taken in the discharge of official functions or duties, and by no stretch of imagination can it be extended to cases involving the demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, which are pure criminal acts unrelated to official duties.

Summary of the Judgment

  • Scope and Intent of Section 17A of the PC Act:
    • Section 17A prohibits police officers from conducting inquiries or investigations into offences alleged against a public servant where the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without prior approval from the competent authority.
    • The provision is designed to protect public servants from malicious interference in bona fide administrative or quasi-judicial decision-making, but it does not provide an omnibus protective umbrella or blanket immunity for criminal misconduct.
  • Exclusion of Bribery and Illegal Gratification:
    • Criminal acts such as misappropriation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and receiving bribes or demanding illegal gratification are completely foreign to the discharge of official duties.
    • Reaffirming precedents like Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act that has no linkage with official recommendations or decisions, thereby rendering Section 17A completely inapplicable.
  • Validity of Prosecution Sanction:
    • The record indicated that valid prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act had been duly granted prior to the taking of cognizance. The Court noted that even if any procedural irregularity were claimed regarding sanction timing, it would not vitiate the trial on merits.
  • Final Outcome:
    • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lack of prior approval under Section 17A did not vitiate the proceedings because the provision was never attracted to allegations of bribery.

2026 INSC 1147

Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (D.O.J. 16.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1147 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Protection of Water Bodies vs. Bona Fide Flat Buyers: Balancing State Resumption with Equitable Relief

October 18, 2026 No Comments

These civil appeals arose from orders passed by the Madras High Court which dismissed challenges against the Commissioner of Land Administration’s order setting aside a fraudulently granted ryotwari patta over a water body (Kanakkan Pillai Kuttai) and ordering the demolition of residential apartments built thereon. The land in question (Survey No. 572, Thirumullaivoyal Village) was historically classified in revenue records as Government Poramboke (tank/water body). Despite Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, which strictly prohibits ryotwari pattas on private tanks or ooranis, a District Revenue Officer illegally granted a patta in 2011, leading to commercial subdivision, bank mortgaging, and construction of residential flats sold to innocent buyers.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that public water bodies vest in the State free from encumbrances and cannot be converted into ryoti land or alienated. However, taking cognizance of the plight of innocent flat buyers who purchased properties backed by municipal approvals and revenue mutations, the Supreme Court invoked equitable measures, directing the Chief Secretary and District Collector to allot a vacant, commensurate site to the flat owners within six months before proceeding with the demolition of the 0.22-acre constructed area.

  • Non-Ryoti Nature of Water Bodies and Section 14-A:
    • Beds and bunds of tanks, channels, and communal poramboke lands do not constitute “ryoti land” under Section 3(16) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
    • Section 14-A of the Act explicitly prohibits the grant of ryotwari pattas for private tanks or ooranis and mandates the cancellation of any patta erroneously or mistakenly issued over such water bodies.
    • Historical revenue records (such as the 1911 RSR Register) take precedence, and municipal zoning notifications (such as “Mixed Residential Zone” under the Town and Country Planning Act) cannot efface the statutory character of public water bodies or transfer ownership.
  • Administrative Fraud and Unauthorized Patta:
    • The 2011 order granting a ryotwari patta was marred by fabricated file numbers, absent jurisdictional reports, and clear administrative malpractices, justifying its annulment by the Commissioner of Land Administration.
  • Protection of Bona Fide Flat Buyers and Equitable Relief:
    • While upholding the state’s power to reclaim water bodies and dismissing the appeals, the Court severely criticized state authorities and municipal bodies whose flawed revenue alterations and building approvals misled innocent purchasers.
    • To prevent severe financial injury and homelessness for families who purchased flats in good faith, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector of Tiruvallur to allot a vacant, commensurate alternative site to the flat owners’ association within six months prior to the demolition of the 0.22-acre construction.
  • Remedies and Final Outcome:
    • The civil appeals filed by the flat buyer and the mortgagee bank were dismissed.
    • The flat owners and the bank were granted liberty to pursue independent civil and criminal remedies for compensation against the developer, landowner, and mortgagor.
    • The State Government was granted freedom to conclude disciplinary and criminal proceedings against erring officials complicit in the fraudulent patta grant.

2026 INSC 1146

S. Gururaj v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration and Others (D.O.J. 16.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1146 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Enhancing Compensation for Severe Motor Accident Disabilities

October 18, 2026 No Comments

These civil appeals arose from a common judgment of the Kerala High Court modifying a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award concerning a severe accident on October 22, 2016, involving two scooter riders. The first appellant (Sunil Kumar, a pillion rider) suffered debilitating head injuries resulting in total dependency, while the second appellant (Sreejith K.S., the driver) suffered multiple fractures and nerve injuries affecting his arm. Dissatisfied with the extent of enhancement granted by the High Court, both claimants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and substantially enhanced the compensation for both appellants. The Court held that when injuries cause cognitive dysfunction or total loss of earning capacity, assessment must shift from strict medical disability percentages to 100% functional disability. Furthermore, the Court established that future attendant/bystander charges for lifelong care must be calculated using the multiplier method, and recognized additional compensation for loss of marriage prospects in young injured claimants.

  • Functional Disability vs. Medical Disability:
    • Reaffirming principles from Shankar Dutt and Jithendran, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must evaluate the real-world impact of injuries on an individual’s earning capacity and daily life rather than relying solely on medical board percentages.
    • For the first appellant (pillion rider), despite a 75.5% medical disability certificate, his severe head and brain injuries rendered him totally dependent for life, justifying a 100% functional disability For the second appellant (driver), functional disability was assessed at 80% due to permanent impairment of his arm.
  • Multiplier Method for Attendant/Bystander Charges:
    • Rejecting inadequate lump-sum bystander awards, the Court ruled that lifelong attendant charges must be factored using the multiplier method (matching the appropriate multiplier for the claimant’s age), as it effectively accounts for inflation, wage growth, and longevity.
  • Loss of Marriage Prospects:
    • Recognizing that the second appellant was an energetic 22-year-old youth at the time of the accident, the Court awarded 5,00,000/- specifically under the head of loss of future prospects of marriage, following the precedent in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar.
  • Future Medical Expenses:
    • The Court upheld and reasonably scaled up future medical expenses to 10,00,000/- for the first appellant and Rs. 8,00,000/- for the second appellant to cover continuous long-term medical care.
  • Final Compensation and Directions:
    • First Appellant (Sunil Kumar): Total compensation was enhanced to 77,84,394/-, resulting in an additional payable amount of Rs. 41,61,750/-.
    • Second Appellant (Sreejith K.S.): Total compensation was enhanced to 69,60,880/-, resulting in an additional payable amount of Rs. 41,90,216/-.
    • The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with 5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition within 6 weeks for direct bank transfer by the Tribunal.
2026 INSC 1145
Sunil Kumar (Totally Disable Rep. by Wife) v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (D.O.J. 15.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1145 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Guardianship vs. Usurpation: Striking Down Illegal Gifts of Temple Inam Land to the State

October 18, 2026 No Comments

These appeals, filed by devotees of the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple, challenged the Madras High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition concerning the alienation of temple property. A temporary trustee of the temple had executed a gift deed on August 30, 2017, transferring 1 acre and 10 cents of temple inam land to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the construction of a Taluk Office. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and declared the gift deed null and void. The Court held that the State, acting as a statutory custodian under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, cannot accept gifts of temple property or convert its role as a protector into a beneficiary. Although the Court declined to demolish the Taluk Office building constructed with public funds, it ordered the State to pay a revised monthly lease rent with arrears and penalized the State with costs for defending an unlawful transaction.

  • Character of Temple Property and Statutory Bar:
    • The subject land was an inam land granted for the support and maintenance of the deity under Inam Title Deed No. 388.
    • Under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (1959 Act), a gift of an inam property is expressly declared null and void, and unlike other transactions, the statute consciously withholds any possibility of subsequent validation or sanction for a gift.
    • Registration of the gift deed was also barred under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
  • Fiduciary Duty of Trustees and Role of the State:
    • Trustees (whether permanent or temporary) are bound by Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act to manage temple assets with ordinary prudence and fidelity; a gratuitous gift confers no benefit on the institution and violates their fiduciary duty.
    • The State is a statutory custodian and regulator of religious properties, not an owner; accepting a gift of temple land under the guise of administrative convenience or public purpose offends the 1959 Act.
  • Condemnation of State Conduct:
    • The Supreme Court strongly criticized the State Government for aggressively defending the invalid gift deed across judicial forums for years and only conceding its illegality after being specifically directed by the Supreme Court.
  • Equitable Relief and Lease Arrangements:
    • Because a public Taluk Office building had already been constructed on the land using public funds, the Court refused to annul the lease entirely.
    • However, applying the formula established by the Fair Rent Committee and government orders based on local market values (Rs. 167/- per sq. ft.), the Supreme Court enhanced and rounded off the monthly lease rent to 31,000/- per month, payable with arrears from March 8, 2019, to be revised every three years under Section 34-A.
  • Final Directions and Costs:
    • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, declared the gift deed void, ordered the State to pay arrears of rent within three months, and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the State payable to the Temple.

2026 INSC 1144

K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others (D.O.J. 16.10.2026)

2026 INSC 1144 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins