'Everyone Has Right To Choose Medical Care' : Supreme Court Gives Abhishek Banerjee Foreign Travel Permission For Eye Treatment
Debby Jain
10 Aug 2026 1:21 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Trinamool Congress member and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for a period of three weeks for medical treatment of his eye.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana allowed Banerjee's appeal against the Calcutta High Court's refusal to relax the restriction on foreign travel, which was imposed as a condition for stay his arrest in a case over an alleged provocative remark made during the 2026 State Assembly election campaign.
The Supreme Court granted the permission subject to Banerjee's undertaking that he will travel only on his diplomatic passport. He has also been directed to share his itinerary and place of stay with the investigating agency.
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the State of West Bengal, opposed the plea, saying that there were sixteen cases against him, and there was an apprehension that he may not come back if he is allowed to travel.
The bench however expressed disinclination to entertain the State's objection. "Every individual has the right to go abroad, every individual has the right to choose the medical care," Justice Bagchi said. Justice Bagchi also pointed out that the case was only relating to an election speech.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Abhishek Banerjee, submitted that he has only a diplomatic passport now, which was issued to him for Operation Sindoor outreach, and said that the embassies will be able to monitor his movements when he travels on the diplomatic passport. This will address the State's apprehension of absconding, he said.
The senior counsel further submitted that there was no chance of the petitioner absconding considering that he was an MP, a General Secretary of a national party, and has his family back in India. He added that most of the cases against him were registered after the change of government in the State. The ASG retorted that the previous dispensation did not dare to file the cases.
The ASG said that he has no objection to the petitioner getting a medical treatment abroad; but firstly, it has to be ascertained if the need was genuine, and for that there has to be a medical evaluation. If he is not appearing for a medical evaluation, then an adverse inference must be drawn, the ASG contended.
However, the bench expressed that it was granting the relief to the petitioner. After the order was dictated, Sankaranarayanan requested that the State be directed to keep his itinerary confidential. The bench directed that it should not be published.
Banerjee approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court's August 5 decision to reject his plea seeking permission to travel abroad for eye treatment.
The High Court's restriction on foreign travel was imposed as a condition for a stay on his arrest in the criminal case relating to an alleged provocative speech made in connection with the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.
He had earlier approached the Court challenging the July 20 order of the High Court, which refused him travel permission, and instead asked him to undergo treatment at the state-run SSKM Hospital and the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGME&R).
On August 3, the Supreme Court disposed of his plea with a request to the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously. On August 5, the Calcutta High Court dismissed his application, saying that he declined to appear before a medical board constituted to assess whether he required treatment overseas.
The High Court noted that had Banerjee appeared before the board, its medical opinion could have enabled the court to determine whether he required treatment abroad.
The High Court observed that it was not a medical expert and that, at this stage, the crucial question was whether Banerjee required treatment, rather than where such treatment was to be administered.
The High Court also rejected the argument that Banerjee had an absolute right to choose the doctor or medical establishment where he should receive treatment, noting the pendency of several criminal prosecutions and ongoing investigations against him.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Banerjee, had submitted in the High Court that he wanted to continue treatment with the specialist in the United States who had previously operated on him. She also submitted that Banerjee was unwilling to undergo treatment at SSKM Hospital.
The West Bengal government had opposed the plea, contending that there was no medical emergency warranting treatment abroad and that permitting Banerjee to travel overseas could affect ongoing investigations in cases against him.
Case : Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal | SLP (Crl) 14489/2026
