Delhi High Court allows Natasha Narwal to travel to UK, says UAPA charges do not impose a blanket bar on travel abroad

The petitioner sought permission to travel to the United Kingdom from 2 November to 1 December 2026 to present a paper at an academic conference and meet her PhD supervisors at the University of Warwick.

She was on bail in two criminal cases, including one involving UAPA charges, and her bail conditions required her to surrender her passport and obtain the Trial Court’s prior permission before travelling abroad.

The Trial Court rejected her applications, principally because of the seriousness of the UAPA allegations.

The petitioner challenged those orders, relying on her academic commitments, her family ties in India, and her history of compliance with bail conditions.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to travel to the United Kingdom for the stated academic purposes despite the serious charges against her and the restriction in her bail order requiring prior court permission

Whether safeguards could adequately address the State’s concerns about the petitioner’s return to India and compliance with her bail conditions

The Court relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, for the principle that the right to travel abroad is a facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and may be restricted only in accordance with procedure established by law.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s existing bail condition requiring prior permission to travel abroad and treated the seriousness of the charges, including UAPA charges, as relevant but not sufficient to impose a blanket bar on foreign travel.

It did not identify a separate statutory test for granting temporary travel permission.

The Court found that the proposed visit had substantiated academic purposes: the petitioner’s supervisors specifically invited her for in-person meetings, training and research activities, and her paper had been accepted for presentation at an international conference.

Although the State raised concerns about possible asylum and difficulties in extradition, the Court noted that the petitioner had been on bail since 2021 without any alleged breach, that the trials were likely to take considerable time, and that she had close family in the NCR.

In light of the Article 21 principle, the Court held that the seriousness of the charges did not, by itself, justify a blanket denial of travel; it considered the risks manageable through specified undertakings, security and reporting requirements.

The Trial Court was directed to release her passport, any Look Out Circular was suspended for the travel period, and she was required to surrender her passport within 48 hours of returning to India.