Court Recognizes Right to Travel Abroad as Part of Fundamental Right Under Article 21, Permits UK Visit for PhD Work with Strict Safeguards
In a significant ruling affirming the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Delhi High Court on October 16, 2026, permitted activist and PhD scholar Natasha Narwal to travel to the United Kingdom for academic purposes, despite serious pending charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, allowed Narwal's travel from November 2 to December 1, 2026, enabling her to attend an international conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, and to visit the University of Warwick for in-person supervisory meetings and doctoral training essential for the completion of her PhD research.
Narwal, who has been on bail since 2021 in two separate FIRs involving serious allegations including sections under the UAPA, had her earlier request to travel abroad rejected by the trial court. The FIRs pertain to offences such as rioting, murder, conspiracy, and unlawful activities, with one FIR registered under the Crime Branch and another under the Special Cell of Delhi Police.
The petitioner was pursuing her PhD remotely from India at the University of Warwick's School of Law since October 2023. Her research paper titled "Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction" was accepted for presentation at the prestigious Historical Materialism Conference in London. Her academic supervisors emphasized that her physical presence on campus was materially necessary for quality research, thesis qualification, and participation in on-campus doctoral training, which could not be replaced by virtual meetings.
The State opposed the travel on grounds that the academic activities could be conducted virtually and warned about the risk of Narwal seeking asylum in the UK, which has stringent extradition laws. However, the High Court noted that the right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed in a blanket manner due to serious pending charges. It observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time, and Narwal had complied with bail conditions so far.
The Court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the trial process: Narwal must furnish an undertaking to return by December 2, 2026, not to seek asylum in the UK, and refrain from commenting on the merits of the ongoing cases abroad. She must also provide a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with her brother as surety, submit a copy of her visa, flight tickets, and travel itinerary to the Investigating Officer, and surrender her passport within 48 hours of return. The Look-Out Circular (LoC), if any, against her would remain suspended during her travel.
This judgment reaffirms the principle laid down in the landmark Supreme Court case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which recognized the right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the balance between individual rights and state interests, ensuring that academic freedom and fundamental rights are protected even when serious charges are pending.
Bottom Line:
Bail condition requiring prior permission to travel abroad - Accused facing serious charges including under UAPA cannot be denied permission to travel abroad in a blanket manner - Right to travel abroad is a facet of Article 21 - Permission granted for travel to United Kingdom for bona fide academic purposes, subject to safeguards.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code (Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 283, 332, 333, 323, 307, 302, 427, 120B, 34, 188, 109, 114, 124A, 153A, 201, 212, 295, 395, 420, 435, 436, 452, 454, 468, 471), Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25, 27), Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Sections 3, 4), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Sections 13, 16, 17, 18), Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 21).
Natasha Narwal v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999249
