Delhi High Court: Natasha Narwal Gets UAPA Foreign Travel Nod

• The Delhi High Court permitted Delhi riots accused Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for academic purposes, overturning a trial court's denial.
• Justice Amit Bansal's order on October 16 stated that Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) charges do not constitute a blanket bar on foreign travel.
• Narwal, a PhD student at the University of Warwick, will present a research paper and meet supervisors in London.
• She was allowed to travel on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with her brother as surety, under conditions not to seek asylum or comment on her cases.
• The ruling sets a precedent that UAPA charges do not automatically curtail the right to travel abroad for legitimate reasons.

The Delhi High Court explicitly stated that the gravity of charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) does not, by itself, serve as an automatic and comprehensive restriction on an individual's fundamental right to travel abroad.

The Delhi High Court has issued a significant ruling, permitting Natasha Narwal, an individual accused in connection with the Delhi riots, to travel to the United Kingdom for academic purposes. Justice Amit Bansal delivered the order on October 16, which effectively overturned a previous decision by a trial court dated October 6 that had denied her permission to leave the country.

Narwal's travel is specifically for her doctoral studies, enabling her to meet with her PhD supervisors and engage in various academic activities at the University of Warwick. The High Court's decision underscores that even in cases involving serious charges, an individual's right to travel abroad for legitimate reasons can be upheld, provided certain conditions are met.

A central tenet of the High Court's ruling is its clear assertion that an ongoing case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) does not automatically impose a blanket prohibition on an individual's right to travel internationally. The court explicitly stated that the gravity of charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) does not, by itself, serve as an automatic and comprehensive restriction on an individual's fundamental right to travel abroad.

This principle was applied in Narwal's case, allowing her to travel on a personal bond amounting to ₹1 lakh, with her brother serving as surety. Furthermore, the court imposed specific conditions on her travel, stipulating that she must not seek asylum in the UK nor make any public comments regarding the legal cases pending against her during her stay.

Natasha Narwal is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Warwick and sought permission to attend an international academic conference in London. Her research paper, titled 'Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction,' has been accepted for presentation at this event, highlighting the academic nature of her requested travel. Beyond the conference, her itinerary included crucial meetings with her PhD supervisors and participation in other university-related academic engagements.

The State, however, had opposed her request, presenting arguments that her academic commitments could be fulfilled remotely via video conferencing. Additionally, the State raised concerns that allowing her to travel to the UK could create complications if she were to seek asylum there. Despite these objections, the High Court carefully considered the specifics of the case before arriving at its decision.

This ruling by the Delhi High Court carries significant implications for individuals facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), particularly concerning their right to travel abroad. It establishes a crucial precedent that UAPA charges, while serious, do not inherently negate a person's fundamental right to international travel for legitimate purposes, such as academic pursuits.

Lawyers representing individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) can cite this Delhi High Court precedent to argue against blanket travel bans, establishing that UAPA charges do not automatically curtail a person's right to travel abroad for legitimate reasons, such as academic pursuits. The decision reinforces the principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate and not arbitrary, even in the context of grave accusations.

Lawyers representing individuals accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) can cite this Delhi High Court precedent to argue against blanket travel bans, establishing that UAPA charges do not automatically curtail a person's right to travel abroad for legitimate reasons, such as academic pursuits.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets