© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
UK citizen travel plea news: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea of a woman, who is a UK citizen of Indian origin and faces fraud charges here, to travel abroad observing the right to personal liberty must be balanced against “compelling public interest”.
The woman is currently under probe in connection with the alleged misappropriation of about ₹208 crore. She was challenging the October 21, 2024 order of a district court, which denied her plea to travel to the UK.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja referred to Article 21 of the Constitution which deals with personal liberty and said, “These rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in ensuring that persons accused of grave economic offences remain amenable to the legal process.”
Noting that she is a foreign national with “no roots” in this country, the court underlined a “reasonable apprehension” that she might not return to India to face trial.
The 76-year-old UK resident and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) was stopped at IGI airport while trying to return to the UK in 2022 due to a look out circular (LOC) issued following a Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigation connected to alleged siphoning of funds by Net4 India Ltd. and related companies. She was one of the accused along with her son and husband.
Upholding the previous orders refraining her from travelling abroad, the court said that she had not shown “any exceptional circumstance” warranting any deviation.
Senior advocate Madhav Khurana, who represented the woman, said his client was neither a director nor a shareholder in Net4India Ltd., at any point in time and had merely functioned as a non-executive director in its subsidiaries, not being engaged in day-to-day management or financial affairs.
He argued that the 76-year-old widow was a British citizen since 2000 and resided permanently in the UK. She was said to be suffering from multiple serious ailments.
Khurana argued that her right to travel abroad for urgent medical treatment was an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21, which extended even to foreign nationals.
Opposing the plea, Centre’s standing counsel Shiva Lakshmi argued that the woman’s plea of medical urgency was misconceived since adequate facilities for her treatment were available in India.
Lakshmi said the woman was a flight risk, arguing that economic offences are a class apart and need to be viewed with greater seriousness.
She suffered a cardiac arrest in September 2022 and had sought permission to travel back to the UK for medical reasons. The high court then allowed her with conditions of disclosing her bank accounts, appointment of a competent representative, and an undertaking of cooperation.
The woman, however, refused to disclose her bank account details for more than two years and was found to be withholding details of her son, a co-accused residing abroad, and denied knowledge of company affairs.
“Accordingly, in view of the petitioner’s past non-compliance, the availability of requisite medical treatment within India, her status as a foreign national with no roots in this country, and the real and subsisting apprehension that she may not return to face trial, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated October 21, 2024,” the order held.
