Supreme Court Balances Right to Travel with Victim's Right to Speedy Trial
Right to travel abroad for accused must be balanced with victim’s right to speedy trial: Supreme Court
Image: Deccan Herald
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and must be balanced against the victim's right to a speedy trial. This decision arose from a case involving accused Gunigati Ravinder Rao, whose travel was restricted due to ongoing criminal proceedings related to a 2014 complaint about a suspicious death.
- 01The Supreme Court emphasized that personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, must be balanced with the complainant's right to a speedy trial.
- 02The court set aside a Telangana High Court order allowing Gunigati Ravinder Rao to travel to the USA, restoring the Magistrate's earlier decision.
- 03Rao faces charges under Sections 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code related to the alleged abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy.
- 04The court noted that Rao's actions, including multiple judicial interventions, have delayed the trial, which has not commenced nearly 10 years after the charge sheet was filed.
- 05The Supreme Court stated that adequate medical facilities are available in India, countering Rao's claim of needing treatment in the USA.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to travel abroad, while part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not absolute and must be weighed against the victim's right to a speedy trial and the public interest in criminal justice. This ruling came in the case of Gunigati Ravinder Rao, who had sought permission to travel to the USA amidst ongoing criminal proceedings related to the suspicious death of a complainant's father in 2014. The court set aside a previous order from the Telangana High Court that allowed Rao to travel, reinstating a Magistrate's decision that denied automatic passport release for travel. The bench noted that Rao's repeated judicial interventions have stalled the trial, which has yet to commence nearly a decade after the charge sheet was filed. The court also highlighted that adequate medical care is available in India, dismissing Rao's claims of needing treatment abroad. The ruling emphasizes the need for a balance between individual rights and the rights of victims within the judicial process.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The ruling impacts the rights of individuals under investigation while ensuring that victims' rights and the judicial process are not compromised.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Do you believe the right to travel should be unrestricted for individuals facing criminal charges?
Connecting to poll...
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.