Right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty; tribunal restraint needs express statutory authority

The right to travel abroad is treated as a facet of personal liberty protected by Article 21 and may be curtailed only by a valid law enacted by a competent legislature through a fair, just and reasonable procedure. In the absence of such law, a restriction on foreign travel is constitutionally significant and cannot be imposed merely by administrative or tribunal action. The note also states that, under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal's interim and procedural powers do not extend to restraining a person from leaving India, as no express or implied statutory authority supports such a restraint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to travel abroad. (ii) Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has power under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to restrain a person from travelling abroad.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to travel abroad.

Analysis: The right to travel abroad was treated as part of the broader protection of personal liberty. The right was described as a distinct facet of liberty protected by Article 21 and capable of restriction only by law made by a competent legislature and through a fair, just and reasonable procedure. The absence of enacted law depriving or regulating that right was treated as constitutionally significant.

Conclusion: The right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty protected by Article 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has power under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to restrain a person from travelling abroad.

Analysis: The scheme of Sections 19 and 22 of the Act was examined and it was found that the Tribunal's interim and procedural powers extend to orders such as injunction, stay, attachment, security, and regulation of procedure, but not to a specific restraint on leaving the country. In the absence of express or implied statutory authority, such a restriction could not be sustained, especially when it affects a fundamental right under Article 21.

Conclusion: The Debt Recovery Tribunal had no power under the Act to restrain travel abroad.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing permission to travel abroad was held unsustainable and was set aside, and the petitioner was granted permission to travel for the limited period sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on the fundamental right to travel abroad can be imposed only by a valid enacted law, and a tribunal cannot curtail that right in the absence of express statutory authority.

---