Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, a Debts Recovery Tribunal can not impose conditions

Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Right to Travel Abroad in Landmark Ruling, Debts Recovery Tribunal Cannot Impose Travel Restrictions Without Legislative Backing, Rules Court

In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the fundamental right to travel abroad, ruling that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks the authority to impose conditions or restrict this right in the absence of explicit legal provisions. The decision was delivered by Justice Pranay Verma in the case of "Rajiv Soni v. ICICI Bank," concerning a writ petition challenging the conditions imposed by the DRT on the petitioner’s travel.

The petitioner, Rajiv Soni, an ex-director of Metalman Industries Limited and a co-guarantor for a loan declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), had sought permission to travel to the United States for employment. However, the DRT had conditioned this travel on the deposit of Rs. 50 crore as a surety, which could be in the form of a bank guarantee, immovable property, or shares. Soni contested these conditions as being beyond the DRT's statutory powers and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to practice any profession and the right to personal liberty, respectively.

The court, referencing precedent from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasized that the right to travel abroad is integral to personal liberty. It reiterated that any restriction on this right must be supported by a law enacted by a competent authority. The court noted that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, does not confer such powers on the DRT, either explicitly or implicitly.

Justice Verma underscored the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for the enforcement of fundamental rights, even when alternative remedies exist. He observed that the conditions imposed by the DRT unjustly encroached upon Soni’s rights, highlighting that the tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to impose travel restrictions or conditions in the absence of a specific legislative mandate.

The judgment has been lauded as a crucial affirmation of individual liberties, ensuring that administrative bodies adhere strictly to the powers conferred by statute and do not overreach in ways that infringe on fundamental rights. This ruling also clarifies that financial liabilities, however significant, cannot be grounds for impinging on personal freedoms without a legislative framework.

Bottom Line:

Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) does not have the authority to impose conditions or restrict this right in the absence of an enacted or state law.

Statutory provision(s): Articles 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

Rajiv Soni v. ICICI Bank, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2817054