The ‘right to travel abroad’ is a fundamental right, but it is “not an absolute one,” and it is subject to certain limitations, the Madras High Court has said.
Justice M. Venugopal made the observation in response to a contention by an accused, charge-sheeted by the CBI in a serious crime, that no one could be deprived of his or her right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution, except according to the procedure established by law.
In his petition, K. Zahir Hussain challenged a June 13 order of the II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, objecting to his travelling abroad when the case was pending against him. The trial court said the petitioner had not filed any material to show he was doing garment business in Dubai and had not produced any document to show he had to necessarily visit that country.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no law placing any restriction on citizens travelling abroad. The petitioner’s passport had not been impounded; it was handed over to him after a trial court order. As such, the trial court should not object to his travelling abroad.
CBI Special Public Prosecutor N. Chandrasekharan said a prima facie case had been made out against Hussain for his role in defrauding the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board , Bangalore, of Rs.12 crore. The petitioner’s presence was essential for the completion of the trial. He would flee justice if he was permitted to travel abroad.
Dismissing the petition, Mr. Justice Venugopal said the right to go abroad was an individual’s personal liberty. There was no order to impound the petitioner’s passport. However, the judge said there were 13 accused in the main case and one of them was absconding. Given the gravity of the case, the petitioner’s plea could not be allowed.
