The Delhi High Court has held that the fact that a person is facing serious charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) does not curtail their right to travel abroad in a blanket manner.

Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while permitting Natasha Narwal, accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to travel to the United Kingdom from November 2 to December 1, to attend an international academic conference and meet her PhD supervisors at the University of Warwick.

“The fact that the petitioner has been charged of serious offences under the UAPA does not curtail her right to travel abroad in a blanket manner,” the Court observed.

Narwal had approached the Court challenging two orders passed by a trial court on October 06, rejecting her applications seeking permission to travel abroad.

She is facing trial in two cases arising out of the 2020 Delhi riots, including a case registered under the UAPA. She was granted bail in one case by the trial court in September 2020 and in the other by a Division Bench of the High Court in June 2021.

One of the bail conditions required her to surrender her passport and obtain prior permission from the trial court before travelling abroad.

Vide the impugned order, the trial court had held 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.

Narwal sought permission to visit the UK to present her research paper titled “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction” at the Historical Materialism Conference scheduled to be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, from November 5 to 8.

She also sought to meet her PhD supervisors at the University of Warwick, where she has been pursuing her doctoral programme remotely since October 2023.

The Delhi Police opposed her plea, arguing that the UK's strict extradition laws could make it difficult to extradite her if she sought asylum there. It also contended that her academic objectives could be achieved virtually.

Allowing the pleas, the Court noted that Narwal had been on bail since 2021 and that the State had not alleged any violation of her bail conditions.

It further observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude and that her close family members resided in the National Capital Region.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court permitted Narwal to travel to the UK subject to safeguards, including an undertaking that she would return to India on December 2, would not apply for asylum in the UK, and would not comment on the merits of the ongoing cases during her stay.

She has also been directed to furnish a cumulative personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh in both cases, with her brother standing as surety, and provide her UK visa, flight tickets and detailed itinerary to the investigating officer before departure.

The Court directed the trial court to release her passport immediately and ordered that any Look Out Circular (LOC) against her would remain suspended for the duration of the permitted travel.

Narwal has been directed to surrender her passport to the trial court within 48 hours of returning to India.