Right to Travel Abroad

The Jharkhand High Court delivered an important ruling in Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation, reaffirming t

Inclusion of the Right to Travel Abroad under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is a living document that grows and evolves through judicial interpretation. One such important evolution is the recognition of the right to travel abroad as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Although this right is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, Indian courts have consistently expanded the scope of Article 21 to protect human dignity, freedom, and individual autonomy.

A recent judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation has once again brought this issue into the spotlight. The Court clearly held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right and forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

---

Why Was the Case in the News?

On 09 February 2026, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court modified bail conditions imposed on Madhu Singh, allowing her to travel abroad for medical treatment. The petitioner was suffering from an advanced and life-threatening liver disease, and the Court balanced her fundamental rights with the interests of justice.

This decision reaffirmed that restrictions on foreign travel must be reasonable and cannot operate as a permanent curtailment of personal liberty.

---

Background of the Case

Madhu Singh is the wife of former Jharkhand MLA and Minister Kamlesh Kumar Singh. She was an accused in a disproportionate assets case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In 2014, she was granted regular bail, but with conditions that required her to deposit her passport and prohibited her from travelling abroad.

Over the years, the petitioner strictly complied with all bail conditions and cooperated with the trial. In 2025, medical examinations conducted at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), New Delhi, revealed that she was suffering from Laennec cirrhosis substage-4B, a medically recognised pre-cancerous and advanced stage of liver disease. Given the seriousness of her condition and the availability of better treatment options abroad—especially in the USA and UK where her relatives reside—she sought permission to travel overseas.

The CBI opposed the request, arguing that the travel restriction had been imposed earlier by a coordinate Bench and should continue.

---

Observations of the Court

The Court gave significant weight to the medical evidence and noted that there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, no attempt to influence witnesses, and no non-cooperation with the trial. It also observed the slow progress of the trial, with only 46 out of more than 100 witnesses examined since 2014.

Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad flows directly from Article 21. Accordingly, the bail conditions were modified, the passport was ordered to be released, and safeguards were imposed, including prior court permission for each foreign visit.

---

Right to Travel Abroad: Constitutional Position

The right to travel abroad is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution of India. However, courts have interpreted it as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

• Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

• Article 19(1)(d) guarantees freedom of movement within India.

• Article 19(1)(a) indirectly supports foreign travel for education, expression, and professional purposes.

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot arbitrarily refuse or impound a passport without a valid legal procedure. Later, Maneka Gandhi expanded Article 21 by holding that any law restricting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.

---

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the human-rights-oriented interpretation of Article 21, especially in cases involving health and dignity. It clarifies that bail conditions should not become punitive or disproportionate. The ruling also offers relief to undertrial accused persons who seek foreign travel for genuine reasons such as medical treatment, education, or humanitarian grounds.

Most importantly, it strengthens the principle that personal liberty is the rule and restriction is the exception.

---

Conclusion

The decision in Madhu Singh v. State of Jharkhand is a strong reminder that constitutional rights cannot be reduced to mere formalities. The right to travel abroad is an essential aspect of personal liberty and human dignity. While the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions, such restrictions must always pass the test of fairness, necessity, and proportionality under Article 21.