Can the right to personal liberty and travel be curtailed in the face of serious criminal allegations?

Background Story

The petitioner, Shanid, was accused in a high-profile criminal case involving human trafficking and narcotic drug smuggling. According to the allegations, Shanid, along with others, lured a young man, Kevin Mathew, to Qatar by promising him a job and handing him a bag containing drugs without his knowledge. Kevin was arrested upon his arrival in Qatar, where authorities found 4 kgs of narcotics in his possession. The petitioner sought permission to travel abroad for a job opportunity, but the Special Court denied his application. After an unsuccessful appeal, Shanid approached the Kerala High Court to challenge this decision.

Legal Issue

The central legal issue revolves around whether an accused facing serious criminal charges, such as drug trafficking, can be permitted to travel abroad when the investigation is still ongoing. Specifically, it questions the scope of the right to personal liberty and travel, and whether public interest justifies curtailing that right.

Argument of Parties

1. Petitioner's (Shanid) Argument: Denying him permission to travel would cause him irreparable harm, as he had secured employment in Abu Dhabi. His right to personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, is violated without valid justification.
2. State's Argument: The Public Prosecutor emphasized the severity of the charges on the petitioner. Allowing him to leave the country could hamper the ongoing investigation, potentially lead to destruction of evidence, and negatively impact India's relationship with other nations.
3. DSGI's Argument: The Deputy Solicitor General of India also opposed the petition, citing that permitting Shanid to travel abroad could harm India's diplomatic relations with Qatar and other countries due to the serious nature of the allegations.

Court's Observation

The petitioner was accused of being involved in a cross-border drug trafficking racket, a crime with severe consequences. The threat to public safety and India's international image was deemed significant.        

The court noted the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, especially his involvement in an international drug trafficking network.         

It observed that permitting the petitioner to leave the country could enable him to engage in similar activities abroad or tamper with ongoing investigations, which could involve evidence located in other countries.        

The court also emphasized that while the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not an absolute right.         

Any restriction must satisfy the "triple test" of legality, procedural fairness, and non-arbitrariness, ensuring that it does not violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.        

Court's Order

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Special Court's decision to deny the petitioner permission to travel abroad.

It ruled that the serious nature of the charges, the ongoing investigation, and the potential risks to public interest and India's international relations outweighed the petitioner's liberty concerns.

Seema Bhatnagar