The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered a significant ruling, asserting the comparable quality of medical facilities within India to those available in any foreign country. This pronouncement came while setting aside a Telangana High Court order that had permitted an accused, facing trial for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to travel to the United States for medical treatment. The apex court emphasised the imperative to strike a judicious balance between an individual's fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution and the broader societal interest in the effective administration of criminal justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Background and Procedural History
The case originated when the Magistrate initially returned the passport to Respondent No.2 (the accused) but stipulated that he could not leave India without explicit court permission. Subsequently, the Sessions Court reversed this order, directing the deposit of the passport and recommending restrictions on movement under the Passports Act, 1967, given the prolonged pendency of the matter. Aggrieved by this, Respondent No.2 sought relief from the High Court, which, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reinstated the Magistrate's initial order and further permitted foreign travel post-committal, citing the accused's 12 prior appearances before the Magistrate and his purported need for medical treatment in the USA. This decision prompted the complainant, Seesa Santosh, to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judicial Scrutiny of Foreign Travel and Medical Grounds
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma scrutinised the High Court's indulgence. The Supreme Court critically observed: “The “exigencies of medical treatment to be undergone” by the respondent no.2 and that “he has appeared before the Magistrate Court on the last 12 occasions” coupled with his undertaking to return to India within 6 (six) months were considered good enough reasons by the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Having regard to the trajectory of the proceedings right from the date the FIR was registered, the conduct of the respondent no.2, the nature of his ailment, and the medical facilities available in India (which, we believe, are comparable with any facility available in any foreign country), we have no doubt in our mind that the High Court instead of exercising judicial restraint was indulgent towards the respondent no.2 and permitted him to travel to the USA even though all medical facilities exist domestically.” The Court remained unconvinced by the accused's reliance on his track record, highlighting that adequate medical facilities were available domestically.
Balancing Article 21 with Criminal Justice Imperatives
The Supreme Court decisively rejected the contention that requiring a passport deposit or prior court permission for foreign travel infringes upon Article 21. It clarified, “While Article 21 undoubtedly guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty, which includes the right to travel abroad, such right cannot be viewed in isolation. A balance must be struck between the individual liberty of the respondent no. 2 on the one hand and the right of the appellant to a speedy trial together with the larger societal interest in ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice, on the other.” The Court referenced `Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70` to underscore this principle. Ultimately, the appeal filed by Seesa Santosh was allowed, restoring the Magistrate's original order, which prohibited foreign travel without court permission.
