Right to travel abroad must be balanced with victims' right to speedy trial, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be considered in isolation. It must be balanced against the equally crucial right of victims and their families to a speedy trial, underscoring that no fundamental right is absolute.

A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma overturned a Telangana high court order from October 2025 that had permitted businessman Guniganti Ravinder Rao to travel to the United States for medical treatment. The Supreme Court found the lower courts had been overly lenient in this case. The bench stated, "The right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21," while preventing the businessman, accused in a decade-old criminal case, from leaving the country without court permission.

“

The right to a speedy trial is equally an integral facet of Article 21.

The court stressed that while personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, is guaranteed by the Constitution, "such right cannot be viewed in isolation." A balance must be struck between the accused's liberty, the victim's right to a speedy trial, and the broader societal interest in the effective administration of criminal justice. The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's increasing focus on victims' rights, clarifying that personal liberty cannot be used to undermine the protected right of victims to see criminal proceedings concluded promptly.

The case involves a complaint filed in October 2014 concerning the suspicious death of the complainant's father. An FIR was registered in February 2016, accusing Rao and others of criminal conspiracy and abetment of suicide. Despite nearly ten years passing, the trial has not yet commenced. The judges noted that the accused's conduct and the prolonged delay in the trial weighed against granting unrestricted travel permission.

“

such right cannot be viewed in isolation.