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

Admissibility of Deceased Witness Testimony Against Absconding Accused

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal, ruling that the deposition of a deceased witness recorded in an earlier trial is admissible in a subsequent trial against an absconding accused, provided the requirements of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are met. The Court clarified that the provision serves to preserve evidence when an accused deliberately absconds, preventing them from benefiting from the unavailability of material witnesses due to the passage of time. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, which had denied the admission of the victim’s testimony, confirming that the statutory preconditions—the accused absconding and no immediate prospect of arrest—were satisfied at the time the witness deposed.

  • Background: In a 2012 gang-rape case, the respondent and another accused were absconding while three others were tried and convicted. The victim, a key witness, testified in the first trial but passed away in 2015. After the respondent was arrested in 2016, the prosecution sought to admit the victim’s earlier deposition as evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 299 of the CrPC.
  • High Court Order: The High Court of Calcutta had rejected the application, observing that the prosecution had a duty to obtain a specific direction from the Trial Court to record evidence against the absconder during the first trial, and thus the earlier deposition could not be used against the respondent.
  • Interpretation of Section 299 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that Section 299 CrPC acts as an exception to the general rule requiring a witness to be examined in the presence of the accused. It does not mandate a formal, prior order from a Magistrate to record that the accused is absconding; rather, what is relevant is whether the conditions—that the accused is absconding and there is no immediate prospect of arrest—were established at the time the evidence was recorded.
  • Preventing Misuse of Process: The Court reasoned that taking a restrictive view of Section 299 would jeopardize the criminal justice system by incentivizing accused persons to wilfully abscond and await the death or unavailability of material witnesses.
  • Application to Facts: The Court noted that the respondent was a declared absconder when the victim’s testimony was recorded (2013), and he remained at large until his arrest in 2016. As the two essential conditions of Section 299(1) were met, the deceased victim’s evidence is admissible in the trial against the respondent.

Legislative Continuity: The Court noted that the legislature has maintained this principle in Section 335 of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reinforcing the intent to ensure evidence is preserved against those who evade trial.

2026 INSC 718

The State of West Bengal v. Kader Khan – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 718 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Insolvency and Bankruptcy: Finality of Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Sub-judice Claims

July 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Appellant-SRA), ruling that upon the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), all claims—including those pending adjudication (sub-judice)—that are not specifically provided for in the plan stand extinguished. The Court held that the “clean slate” doctrine is fundamental to the IBC, preventing unresolved or contingent claims from resurfacing and undermining the revival of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and dismissed the civil suit and arbitration proceedings initiated by operational creditors, affirming that they are bound by the terms of the approved Resolution Plan.

  • Background: The Appellant-SRA challenged Bombay High Court orders that allowed a civil recovery suit and arbitration proceedings to continue against the corporate debtor (Bhushan Steel Limited) despite the approval of its Resolution Plan. The respondents, operational creditors, sought to pursue claims that were pending at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
  • Treatment of Claims: During the CIRP, the Resolution Professional admitted the respondents’ disputed claims at a notional value of Rupee One (1) each. The approved Resolution Plan stipulated that because the liquidation value was NIL, no amounts were due to operational creditors; however, a settlement fund was provided for those with admitted claims.
  • The “Clean Slate” Doctrine: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must start on a “clean slate,” free from “hydra-headed” surprise claims. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and claims not incorporated therein are deemed extinguished, withdrawn, or abated.
  • Finality of the Plan: The Court noted that the Final List of Creditors attained finality, and the respondents could not seek to reopen or question the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors after the plan’s approval. The Court found no merit in the allegations of fraud, noting that no proceedings had been initiated under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules to challenge the plan’s integrity.
  • No Express Carve-out: Upon a harmonious reading of the Resolution Plan, the Court concluded there was no express “carve-out” protecting sub-judice claims from extinguishment. The plan explicitly mandated that all legal proceedings relating to the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished, except to the extent of the specific settlement amount provided.
  • Observation on MSMEs: In an “Afterword,” the Court observed that the current insolvency framework does not adequately account for the position of small operational creditors and MSMEs, who are often placed at the bottom of the repayment waterfall. The Court suggested that the Legislature and Law Commission examine this to ensure a more balanced repayment mechanism.
  • Outcome: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the contrary High Court orders, and dismissed the pending civil suit and arbitration proceedings, enforcing the finality of the Resolution Plan.

2026 INSC 717

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 717 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Excluding Nominated Members from Local Authority Elections

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to exclude nominated members of Town Panchayats from participating in Legislative Council elections for Local Authorities’ Constituencies. The Court ruled that under the constitutional framework established by the 74th Amendment (Part IX-A), nominated members, who serve only in an advisory capacity, lack the democratic mandate of elected representatives. Consequently, their inclusion in the electoral roll was declared unconstitutional, and the Court affirmed the direction to conduct a recount of votes after segregating the invalid votes cast by these nominated members.

  • Background: The election to the Karnataka Legislative Council (Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency) was challenged because 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats were included in the electoral roll and participated in the voting. The appellant, who won by a narrow margin of 6 votes, contended that the electoral roll’s finality should be respected.
  • Constitutional Interpretation: The Court held that while Article 171(3)(a) mentions “members” of local authorities, this must be interpreted through the lens of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. Article 243-R establishes that while nominated members may be appointed for their expertise, they are expressly barred from voting in municipal meetings, underscoring their advisory rather than representative role.
  • Democratic Representation: The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic nature of the electoral process, as they are not democratically elected. The Court affirmed that “members” in the context of electoral colleges refers to democratically elected representatives.
  • Finality of Electoral Rolls: While acknowledging the principle that electoral rolls typically attain finality, the Court distinguished this case by noting that the inclusion of the nominated members was void ab initio and unconstitutional. Therefore, the finality of the roll could not be used to validate an illegality that strikes at the core of the electoral college’s composition.
  • Secrecy of the Ballot: The Court rejected the argument that segregating these votes would violate the secrecy of the ballot. It maintained that the higher constitutional goal of preserving free and fair elections and ensuring the purity of the electoral process outweighs the requirement for absolute secrecy in this specific context.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. The Court directed the authorities to proceed with the consequential actions based on the recount results already obtained, ensuring that the election outcome reflects only the valid votes cast by elected representatives.

2026 INSC 716

Pranesh M.K. v. Shanthegowda & Ors. – (D.O.J. 16.07.2026)

2026 INSC 716 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Railway: Establishing Liability in Untoward Railway Incidents

July 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent dismissal of a compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that when a passenger dies in an “untoward incident” (falling from a running train), the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically negate the status of a bona fide passenger. Emphasizing the “no-fault liability” principle under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court ruled that once the claimant establishes the foundational facts through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways. Technical lapses and the inability to recover personal belongings should not defeat the humanitarian and welfare objectives of the legislation.

  • Background: The appellant filed a claim for compensation following the death of her husband, who fell from a running train while traveling from Raipur to Ahmedabad. The Railway Claims Tribunal and the High Court previously rejected the claim, citing a lack of proof regarding the deceased being a bona fide passenger (specifically due to the missing ticket).
  • Legal Principle (No-Fault Liability): The Court reiterated that Section 124A of the 1989 Act is a beneficial, “no-fault” provision. It is designed to provide expeditious relief to victims of untoward incidents without requiring proof of negligence by the Railway Administration.
  • Burden of Proof: Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court clarified that:
    • The mere absence of a ticket does not disprove that a person was a bona fide
    • The initial burden is on the claimant, which is sufficiently discharged by filing an affidavit stating the facts.
    • Once this is done, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim based on attending circumstances.
  • Operational Concerns: The Court highlighted the critical issue of chronic overcrowding in Indian Railways. It noted that while the Railway Manuals contain detailed safety and ticketing protocols, the execution often fails. The Court suggested that Railways should increase manpower to better manage safety and ticketing, which could simultaneously reduce such tragedies and provide employment.
  • Constitutional Perspective: The Court observed that using terms like “second class passenger” is outdated and potentially offensive to the spirit of the Constitution of India; it suggested that class designations should refer to the “coach” rather than the “passenger.”

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments. It ordered the Railways to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to the appellant within four weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest at 8% from the date of the original claim filing.

2026 INSC 715

Lata v. Union of India & Anr. – (D.O.J. 17.07.2026)

2026 INSC 715 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins