Economic Offender's Plea To Travel Abroad For Medical Reasons Untenable When Treatment Available In India: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an economic offender's plea to travel abroad citing medical grounds is not tenable when appropriate treatment is readily available in India.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed,

“This Court is conscious of the principles of personal liberty under Article 21, however, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in ensuring that persons accused of grave economic offences remain amenable to the legal process.”

The bench was dealing with the plea of an Overseas Citizen of India in connection with a Look Out Circular issued against her for siphoning of about Rs. 208 crores while holding the position of Director in Net4 Network Services Ltd. (NNSL).

It was alleged that the Petitioner wrongfully diverted about ₹60 crores of Net4 India Ltd. (N4IL) revenue to NNSL, ultimately benefiting her family and related entities, causing wrongful loss to N4IL, its creditors, and stakeholders.

The probe agency— SFIO, further revealed that the Petitioner was non-cooperative during the investigation and was a flight risk.

The Petitioner on the other hand claimed that she's a 76-year-old widow, a British citizen and has serious medical ailments. However, she has been compelled to remain in India for over two years due to travel restrictions.

It was submitted that her right to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment is an integral facet of “personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which extends even to foreign nationals.

The High Court however refused to extend any relief to her, noting that she was a signatory to the Master Reseller Agreement, by virtue of which the entire business of N4IL was transferred to NNSL for a period of seven years, which as per the complaint, was executed to avoid payment of legitimate dues to the creditors and the banks.

It further observed,

“the plea of medical urgency does not persuade this Court. The petitioner has not been able to establish that the requested medical procedure…is unavailable in India…The petitioner did not plead financial incapacity before the trial court, nor has she placed any medical opinion demonstrating that the procedure must necessarily be performed in the United Kingdom. In light of this, her claim to travel abroad on the mandate of Article 21 is untenable.”

Reliance was placed on Mandhir Singh Todd v. ED where it was held that when adequate treatment is available domestically, mere preference for a foreign medical facility does not justify permitting an accused facing serious economic-offence allegations to leave the jurisdiction.

The Court added that Petitioner cannot selectively rely on the completion of investigation to seek relaxation of restrictions while ignoring the adverse findings regarding her past conduct.

It relied on Kanwar Deep Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement where it was held that while an accused has a fundamental right to proper medical treatment and dignified health care, this right must be balanced against the prosecuting agency's legitimate concern that the accused may abscond.

As such, her plea was dismissed.

Appearance: Mr. Maadhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Omar Hoda, Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Mr. Sanjivni Paritosh, Ms. Asees Kaur, Ms. Pragya, Ms. Rishika Jain, Advocates for Petitioner; Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Ms. Archana Surve, GP, Ms. Nupur Grover, SFIO, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Advocates, M. Akanksha Bhadouria, Senior Assistant Director for Respondents

Case title: Mrs Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union Of India And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1545

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 214/2025

Click here to read order