Delhi Riots: Court Denies Natasha Narwal Permission To Travel To UK For Academic Conference

A Delhi court has refused to permit Natasha Narwal, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to travel to the United Kingdom for an academic conference and research work.

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts observed that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and that the pendency of proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was a relevant consideration.

The Court dismissed Narwal's application seeking permission to visit the UK from November 02 to December 01.

The judge noted that the case was pending consideration of charge and that the offences for which Narwal had been chargesheeted under the UAPA were punishable with life imprisonment and, in some cases, even the death penalty.

“Although mere pendency of a criminal case doesn't automatically mean that an accused can never travel abroad but the Court must definitely see the nature of the case and the overall circumstances,” the court observed.

It further held that, in view of the seriousness of the case and the stage of proceedings, it did not deem it appropriate to permit Narwal to travel abroad.

Narwal had approached the court seeking permission to travel to the UK to present a research paper at the 23rd Annual Historical Materialism Conference, scheduled to be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, from November 05 to 08.

Her paper was titled “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction.”

She submitted that the conference was an important academic opportunity and that she intended to visit the University of Warwick, where she has been pursuing a PhD on “Gender and Carceral Labour in India” since 2023. She also proposed to undertake archival research at the British Library.

Narwal stated that the conference required in-person participation and that she had received an invitation and acceptance for her paper.

She further submitted that she had regularly attended court proceedings, complied with all bail conditions and was not a flight risk. She said she would book her air tickets only after receiving the court's permission to avoid financial loss in the event of rejection.

The prosecution opposed the application, contending that the case concerned an alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal riots in Delhi, which resulted in 53 deaths and injuries to hundreds of people.

The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the UAPA provisions were invoked against Narwal and that the matter was at a critical stage, with the question of charge still pending consideration.

The Delhi Police also relied on the condition imposed by the Delhi High Court while granting her bail in June 2021, requiring her to surrender her passport and obtain prior permission from the court before travelling abroad.

It further expressed apprehension that Narwal might seek asylum in the UK and not return to India. The prosecution also questioned the absence of confirmed travel bookings and raised concerns about verification of documents relating to her PhD admission.

Narwal's counsel rejected the apprehension that she would not return to India, submitting that she would continue to be represented by her lawyers and could participate in court proceedings through video conferencing.

In its order passed on October 06, judge Bajpai noted that the FIR in the case was registered in 2020, while Narwal began pursuing her PhD at the University of Warwick in 2023, during the pendency of the proceedings.

The court acknowledged that the Delhi High Court had permitted her to seek the trial court's permission to travel abroad while granting bail. However, it said that the High Court had also directed her to surrender her passport, if one had already been issued, considering the seriousness of the matter.

“Further, as far as the judgments as referred by Ld. Counsel for the applicant are concerned, the right of the applicant to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to certain exceptions and the pendency of the present case under the provisions of UAPA is probably the most relevant exception,” the Court said.

It clarified that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disentitle an accused from travelling abroad, but the nature of the allegations and the overall circumstances must be examined.

Holding that the stage of the proceedings and the seriousness of the offences did not warrant permission to travel, the court dismissed the application.

For context, Narwal also moved a similar plea in another Delhi riots case which was dismissed by judge Bajpai. The Court observed that although mere pendency of a criminal case doesn't automatically mean that an accused can never travel abroad but the Court must definitely see the nature of the case and the overall circumstances.

Narwal has challenged both the orders before the Delhi High Court which are listed tomorrow. While the challenge in relation to UAPA case order is listed before Justice Amit Bansal, the other order's challenge will be heard by Justice Girish Kathpalia.