Courts can't remain in ivory towers while deciding pleas to travel abroad: HC

Observing that international travel has today become “a quotidian necessity rather than a rarefied privilege,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that courts must adopt a pragmatic approach and not remain “ensconced in an ivory tower” while deciding pleas by accused persons seeking permission to travel abroad during investigation or trial.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted the accelerating pace of globalization and “seamless interconnectedness” of the modern world demanded that judicial deliberations be rooted in contemporary realities.

“This paradigm shift necessitates that the courts must not remain in vacuo or ensconced in an ‘ivory tower’, but rather must engage with and adjudicate in consonance with evolving social realities, adopting a pragmatic approach,” the judge observed.

Justice Goel added that the right to travel abroad, though once a rarity, had now become “so profoundly entrenched and inextricably interwoven with the daily affairs of an individual that it is an indispensable facet and an ineluctable corollary of the fundamental right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

At the same time, Justice Goel clarified that “no right, even one of such constitutional gravitas, is sans limitation or absolute.”

The right to travel abroad “is not an unbridled license and is amenable to curtailment under the aegis of judicial scrutiny.”

The Bench added that the courts must perform a “delicate and judicial balancing act” when considering such applications.

“This equilibrium must be maintained between the fundamental right of the undertrial or accused to pursue his legitimate affairs, both personal and professional, and the collective interests of the society and the prosecution to ensure the unwavering presence of the accused before the trial court, thereby preventing a fait accompli where justice is frustrated,” Justice Goel asserted.

The observations came in a detailed judgment examining the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 and the right to travel abroad.

Justice Goel reiterated that this right flowed from the larger guarantee of personal liberty and could be restricted only through a “procedure established by law” which is “just, fair and reasonable.”

The Bench added that the courts, while dealing with applications to travel abroad, were required to balance competing considerations — including the gravity of allegations, antecedents of the accused, the bona fides and duration of travel, and the undertaking to return — ensuring that “the restriction on the right to travel abroad is the least restrictive measure necessary.”

Affirming that liberty remains “the sine qua non of a civilized society,” Justice Goel further added that the judiciary, as “the sentinel on the qui vive,” must protect the constitutional equilibrium between individual rights and the demands of due process.