‘Right to travel abroad is fundamental’: Jharkhand HC allows money-laundering accused to seek treatment for cirrhosis overseas

Observing that the petitioner is an elderly woman suffering from cirrhosis at stage 4B, the court said that travel abroad is the fundamental right of the petitioner and that the order dated May 2014 can be modified.

Madhu Singh, 58, is an accused in cases related to alleged disproportionate assets and money laundering linked to her husband. She was granted bail in 2014 with conditions similar to those imposed on her husband, including surrendering her passport, which has remained deposited since then.

In her petition before the high court, she said she is suffering from an extremely serious and life-threatening chronic liver disease. Medical reports from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), New Delhi, including a liver biopsy conducted in June 2025, state that she is suffering from ‘Laennec cirrhosis substage 4B’, an advanced stage of chronic liver disease medically recognised as a pre-cancer stage.

The reports also show extensive structural distortion of the liver, portal fibrosis, inflammation and autoimmune-related pathological changes.

Her counsel told the court that her close relatives are in the United States and the United Kingdom and that she wants to travel to either country for better treatment.

The CBI opposed the plea, saying she is an accused in a disproportionate assets case and that the earlier bail conditions were rightly imposed.

While hearing the matter, the high court referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India. Quoting from the Supreme Court, the court noted: “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes [the] independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right”.

The court also quoted the observation: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance”.

The high court observed that in view of the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi and later reiterated in Satish Chandra Verma, the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty, and further noted that to travel abroad is the fundamental right of the petitioner.

The court recorded that out of more than 100 witnesses, 46 have been examined so far and there is no allegation that she failed to cooperate in the trial.

Allowing her petition, the high court directed that her passport be released. However, she will have to file an undertaking before the trial court stating how many days she intends to travel each time and must inform the court upon her return to India. She will also have to seek permission from the concerned court before every foreign visit.

The court made it clear that if these conditions are not followed, the trial court will be free to take appropriate steps against her.