Right to Travel Abroad During Criminal Proceedings: What the Supreme Court's 2026 Ruling Actually Means

If you're facing a criminal case in India and have a flight to catch, the law doesn't give you a simple yes or no. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution does include the right to travel abroad — but that right doesn't operate in a vacuum once criminal proceedings are pending against you.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Anr., 2026 INSC 628, delivered on June 4, 2026 by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, shows exactly how that tension plays out in practice. It's not a blanket travel ban on every accused person. It's a reminder that courts weigh liberty against the practical realities of an ongoing case — how long it's dragged on, how the accused has behaved, and whether the reason for travel genuinely holds up.

The Story Behind the Case

It began with a death. In October 2014, the appellant's father died under suspicious circumstances, and what started as an unnatural death inquiry turned into an FIR alleging offences under Sections 120-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A chargesheet followed in February 2016.

From there, the case took on a life of its own. The respondent moved through multiple rounds of litigation over the years — challenging a Look Out Circular, seeking the release of his passport, and asking for permission to travel. By 2025, after returning to India, he asked the courts to return his passport and let him travel to the United States for medical treatment, citing two brain strokes he'd suffered.

The Magistrate agreed to release the passport but insisted he get prior permission before leaving the country. The Sessions Court overturned that. Then the Telangana High Court sided with the respondent entirely, pointing to his medical condition and the fact that he'd shown up before the Magistrate on twelve separate occasions.

That's where the Supreme Court stepped in.

What the Court Actually Ruled

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and went back to what the Magistrate had originally decided — with one important addition. The respondent could keep his passport. What he couldn't do was leave India without permission from the Sessions Court, to be sought after the case reached the committal stage. The Court even directed civil, police, and airport authorities to work together to make sure that condition actually stuck.

The line that sums up the whole judgment:

Holding a passport is not the same as having permission to use it.

That distinction matters more than it might seem. A person may have a valid passport in their possession and still be subject to a court order restricting departure from India.

Why Article 21 Doesn't Mean Unrestricted Travel

The Court didn't dispute that the right to travel abroad falls within personal liberty under Article 21. What it did say is that this right has to be read alongside two other interests: the complainant's right to a speedy trial, and society's broader interest in seeing criminal justice actually function. Drawing on its earlier reasoning in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, the Bench treated this as a balancing exercise rather than a contest with one automatic winner.

In practice, that means a pending criminal case doesn't erase your right to travel — but it does mean a court can attach conditions to it, and those conditions will depend heavily on the specifics of your case.

The Timeline of the Case Mattered as Much as the Facts

What stood out to the Supreme Court wasn't just what happened, but how long it had taken to happen. The case had been pending for years, moving through a string of interim applications and protective orders. When the Bench looked at the respondent's request to travel, it didn't treat it as an isolated ask — it looked at the request against the backdrop of a case that had already been delayed repeatedly.

This is worth sitting with if you're planning your own application: a court isn't just evaluating whether your reason for travel is legitimate on its own terms. It's also asking what allowing that travel might do to a case that's supposed to move toward resolution, not further delay.

Medical Treatment Abroad Isn't an Automatic Pass

The respondent relied on his medical condition, stating that he had suffered two brain strokes. The High Court had accepted it, alongside his record of appearing before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court took a different view, weighing the medical circumstances against the availability of comparable treatment within India and the overall history of the case. On those facts, it wasn't persuaded that travel abroad was justified without judicial oversight.

That doesn't mean medical grounds are worthless in future cases. It means a court will look at the full picture: how urgent the treatment is, what's proposed abroad versus what India can offer, how the case has progressed, how the accused has conducted themselves, and whether safeguards could make travel workable. Two people with similar medical claims could get different outcomes if their case histories differ.

Look Out Circulars Add Another Layer

An LoC complicates things further, and it's easy to conflate it with other travel restrictions when they're not the same thing. The legal basis for an LoC, who issued it, and what court orders sit alongside it all need to be examined individually — you can't assume one LoC works like another.

In Seesa Santosh, the LoC's history was part of the broader picture the Court considered, but the final order centered on requiring judicial permission before departure rather than on the LoC itself. If you're dealing with an LoC, the practical starting point is finding out whether it's still active, which authority issued it, whether any court order already touches it, and which forum actually has jurisdiction to grant relief.

What This Means If You're an NRI or Run a Business

This case has particular relevance if you're an NRI, a company director, or a professional with commitments outside India while a criminal matter is pending here. Business obligations, employment abroad, family responsibilities, ongoing medical treatment, or overseas assets that need attention — these are all real, legitimate reasons people need to travel. None of them, on their own, guarantee a court will grant permission.

What Seesa Santosh suggests is that courts will still look at your case's specific history and how you've complied with earlier directions before deciding. Treating a travel request as a routine formality is a mistake; treating it as an application that needs to be built carefully, with the right documentation and framing, is the better approach.

Where the Line Actually Sits

It's worth being precise about what this judgment does and doesn't say. It doesn't ban foreign travel for every accused person, and it doesn't suggest that simply holding a passport is somehow improper during a pending case. What the Supreme Court did was restore the Magistrate's original position and make clear that the respondent could apply to the Sessions Court, after committal, for permission to travel — an application to be judged on its own facts, with whatever conditions the court thinks appropriate. The Bench was also careful to note that nothing in its order should be read as a finding on the merits of the underlying criminal case.

In short: this is a fact-specific decision about balancing liberty against the practical needs of a case moving toward trial, not a rule that applies uniformly to everyone.

Practical Considerations When Seeking Permission to Travel Abroad

If you're in this situation, a few things tend to make the difference between an application that succeeds and one that doesn't:

Start by mapping every restriction that currently applies to you — the FIR, bail conditions, existing court orders, any LoC, and anything already said about your passport. You can't build a coherent application without knowing exactly what you're working around.

Be specific about why you need to travel and back it up with documents rather than assertions. Vague statements about "personal reasons" carry far less weight than a clearly explained purpose with supporting paperwork.

State your departure and return dates plainly, and be prepared to comply with reasonable conditions the competent court may impose, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Your track record counts too. As Seesa Santosh shows, prior compliance is only one factor among several — but any history of non-compliance can weigh heavily against you when the court assesses your application.

If medical treatment is your basis for travel, bring the paperwork that actually supports it — records, a treating physician's recommendation, and a clear account of why the treatment isn't available in India, if that's your argument.

None of this guarantees an outcome. But it's the difference between an application a court can actually evaluate and one it has no real basis to grant.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I have a criminal case pending, can I still book a flight abroad?

Not without checking first. Depending on your bail conditions, any existing court orders, and whether an LoC has been issued against you, you may need to get permission from the relevant court before you travel — and Seesa Santosh shows that skipping this step can undo travel arrangements a lower court had already approved.

I already have my passport back — doesn't that mean I'm cleared to travel?

No, and this is the exact point the Supreme Court went out of its way to clarify. The respondent in this case kept his passport but was still barred from leaving India without the Sessions Court's sign-off. Passport possession and permission to leave India are not necessarily the same thing. A court may allow a person to retain their passport while separately requiring prior permission before they travel abroad.

Does this ruling mean Article 21 stops applying once I'm charged with a crime?

No — the Court explicitly affirmed that the right to travel remains part of Article 21 liberty. What changes is that this right now has to be balanced against the complainant's interest in a speedy trial and the state's interest in seeing the case through, which can mean conditions get attached to how you exercise it.

Can I get permission to travel abroad for medical treatment if I have a pending case?

You can apply for it, and courts do grant such requests — but not automatically. Expect the court to weigh your medical urgency, the treatment you're proposing abroad, whether India can offer something comparable, and how your case has progressed so far.

What was the bottom line in Seesa Santosh v. State of Telangana?

The Supreme Court overturned the Telangana High Court's order allowing foreign travel and went back to the Magistrate's position: the respondent could keep his passport, but had to get the Sessions Court's permission — after the case reached committal — before leaving the country.

Is every accused person now barred from international travel?

No. This ruling turned on this case's particular facts — its long procedural history, the accused's conduct, and the specific medical claim raised. It's guidance on how courts think about the issue, not a rule that automatically applies to every pending case.

What should I actually do if a travel restriction is affecting me right now?

That depends entirely on where the restriction comes from and what stage your case is at. A lawyer reviewing your FIR, your existing court orders, your passport status, and any LoC against you is the fastest way to figure out which forum can actually grant you relief.

The Bottom Line

Seesa Santosh v. The State of Telangana and Anr. is a useful case precisely because it refuses to give a one-size-fits-all answer. The right to travel abroad survives a criminal charge, but it doesn't survive untouched — courts will weigh it against how long your case has been pending, how you've conducted yourself, and the circumstances supporting your request for travel. The clearest practical lesson is the one the Court stated outright: having your passport in hand is not the same as having permission to use it.

If you're navigating a passport restriction, an LoC, or a pending application for foreign travel, the right approach depends entirely on the specific orders already on your file — which is exactly the kind of thing that's worth getting in front of a lawyer before you book anything.

Facing a passport, LoC, or foreign-travel restriction during a criminal case?

BNG Law Associates advises individuals, NRIs, business executives, and companies on criminal proceedings, passport disputes, Look Out Circulars, and foreign-travel permissions across India.

BNG Law Associates
Delhi NCR | PAN India
Website: www.bnglawassociates.com

This article is intended for general legal information and should not be treated as legal advice for a specific case. The applicable legal position may depend on the facts, procedural stage, and orders passed in your individual matter.