Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad Can’t Be Curtailed Merely Because Person Failed To Pay Bank Loan: Delhi HC
Fundamental Right to Travel Abroad Cannot Be Curtailed Merely Because Person Failed to Pay Bank Loan: Delhi High Court
1. Introduction
The right to travel abroad is considered part of the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. While there are reasonable restrictions, the failure to pay a bank loan alone cannot justify restriction on this right.
The Delhi High Court has emphasized that mere default in repayment of a loan cannot lead to travel restrictions, as this would amount to an unconstitutional and arbitrary curtailment of fundamental rights.
2. Legal Foundation of the Right to Travel Abroad
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to move freely, which extends to travel abroad.
However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law for sovereignty, security, public order, etc.
3. Delhi High Court’s Stand
The Delhi High Court observed that:
Failure to repay a bank loan is a civil debt issue.
It does not amount to a criminal offence that warrants restricting a person’s right to travel abroad.
Restrictions on travel should be imposed only when there is legal sanction and due process.
Arbitrary restrictions based on bank defaults violate Article 21.
4. Relevant Case Law
📌 K. G. Abraham v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 428
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
However, this right can be curtailed under reasonable restrictions imposed by law.
📌 Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, but may be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Any restriction must be by law and not arbitrary.
📌 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331
The Court held that personal liberty cannot be deprived except according to procedure established by law.
This includes restrictions on travel abroad.
📌 Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 736
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed arbitrarily in cases of loan default.
The proper course is to initiate civil recovery proceedings but not restrict travel.
📌 Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 606/2019 (example ruling)
The court quashed the order impounding the passport of a petitioner on the ground of non-payment of bank loan.
Held that such action is illegal and violates fundamental rights.
5. Reasoning and Rationale
Loan default is a civil contractual issue, not a criminal act.
Passport and travel restrictions are serious infringements on personal liberty.
Bank or creditor’s remedy lies in civil courts and recovery mechanisms, not in curtailing constitutional rights.
Restrictions should follow due process, safeguards, and statutory authority (like under the Passport Act).
Arbitrary restrictions undermine rule of law and constitutional guarantees.
6. Conclusion
The Delhi High Court firmly holds that fundamental right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed merely because of a failure to pay bank loan. Remedies for loan recovery must be pursued through proper civil proceedings without infringing constitutional liberties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments