Case Title:
Karthik Parthiban Vs The Superintendent of Police & Anr.
Date of Order:
10th September 2024
Bench:
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE
Parties:
Appellant: Karthik Parthiban
Respondent: The Superintendent of Police & Anr.
Subject:
The case of Karthik Parthiban vs. Superintendent of Police and Others focuses on the writ petition that Karthik Parthiban submitted to the High Court of Judicature in Madras, requesting permission to go to Malaysia for a short period of time. Despite the fact that he is now embroiled in a criminal case that is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the petitioner sought the court in an effort to get permission to see his parents in Malaysia. He cited family crises as well as his basic rights as outlined in the Indian Constitution.
Facts of the case
The petitioner, Karthik Parthiban, serves as the director of A2, a registered organization involved in Criminal Case No. 554 of 2023. The matter is now facing charges before Chennai's Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
Karthik is a citizen of the Seychelles, an East African nation. He has been residing in India as a result of a Look Out Circular (LOC) that was issued by the CBI. The LOC has restricted his mobility, preventing him from departing the country.
Karthik was previously employed in Singapore and has been wedded for only one year. His parents are Indian nationals residing in Malaysia, and his spouse is a Malaysian citizen. The mental and physical anguish of his parents has been further intensified by the recent assault, kidnapping, and theft of his father.
Notwithstanding the commencement of suitable judicial proceedings against the perpetrators, the petitioner is incapacitated in aiding his father owing to restricted mobility, a result of the Line of Control in India.
On September 11, 2024, the petitioner requested that the court grant him permission to visit his relatives in Malaysia until October 11, 2024. He insisted that his parents needed this quick visit to assist them at a tough time. Karthik said the Court had already given him permission to leave India temporarily in W.P., dated August 4, 2023, and November 7, 2023.
Karthik cited the seminal decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), which upheld the constitutional rights to travel abroad guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21. He claimed that he was entitled to a luxurious life as a Seychellese citizen, one that would allow him to visit other countries. He also promised that he will return to India and follow any court orders.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner, through his attorney, Mr. Vijayan Subramanian, contended that the CBI's LOC violated his right to travel, as stipulated in Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized that all individuals, including foreign nationals residing in India, possess the fundamental right to personal liberty and the ability to live with dignity.
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India proved that the freedom to travel internationally is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty as per Article 21. The petitioner underscored this precedent.
He referenced the Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (II) (1980) decision, which affirmed that convicts might retain their dignity while forfeiting their freedom of movement.
He contended that, as an unconvicted individual, he ought to be permitted to exercise his freedom to travel, particularly considering the humanitarian basis of his appeal.
Moreover, the petitioner emphasized his adherence to prior Court directives permitting his temporary departure from the country. On both previous times, he returned to India in accordance with the criteria set by the Court, demonstrating his dedication to cooperating with the legal process.
He told the Court that he would comply with any restrictions imposed for his intended journey to Malaysia. The petitioner claimed that preventing him from visiting his parents at their time of need was an unreasonable restriction on his right to family life, which is a key component of the right to live with dignity.
He said that his request was reasonable, and that there was no reason to deny him the opportunity to satisfy his family duties.
Arguments of Respondent
The petition was contested by the respondents, Mr. K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI), and Mr. V.T. Balaji, Senior Panel Counsel for the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). The CBI's counter-affidavit emphasized significant apprehensions over the petitioner's participation in a substantial financial fraud.
According to the CBI, Karthik's business, Broadcourt Investments Ltd., was involved in the misappropriation of an IDBI Bank-approved loan for M/s Axel Sunshine Limited (A1). The diversion was ostensibly intended to help repay a loan made to M/s WinWind Oy (identified as A7) by the same bank, which has now been categorized as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
This diversion resulted in a loss of Rs. 600 crore for IDBI Bank. The CBI discovered that Karthik is the nephew of A12, who is claimed to have coordinated the loan diversion.
The defendants maintained that allowing the petitioner to leave the country may jeopardize the ongoing investigation and trial. The CBI stressed the lack of an extradition treaty between India and Seychelles, the petitioner's country of citizenship.
This raised concerns that if the petitioner was allowed to leave, he might not return to India, thereby avoiding the investigation and trial procedures. The respondents argued that the petitioner's participation in a significant financial fraud involving public funds justified severe penalties, including limitations on his mobility.
The defendants contended that Article 21 of the Constitution should not be interpreted to encompass the right to travel abroad for individuals implicated in serious economic offenses.
They said that the petitioner's request for overseas travel lacked any urgent or compelling need that would justify a waiver of the LOC. Given the gravity of the financial crime and the risk of flight, the respondents urged the Court to deny the petitioner's request.
Court's Analysis
The High Court of Judicature in Madras, under the leadership of Justice N. Seshasayee, examined the arguments presented by both parties. The Court recognized the petitioner's assertions about his entitlement to personal liberty and the right to live with dignity.
Justice Seshasayee underscored that Article 21 of the Constitution pertains not alone to Indian citizens but also to foreign persons resident in India. The Supreme Court's interpretation of personal liberty in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India include the right to go abroad, which is essential to an individual's dignity and independence.
The court noted that the petitioner returned in accordance with the approved conditions, having complied with prior judicial orders that allowed for a temporary departure from the country.
This diminished the likelihood of his departure from the nation and indicated his willingness to engage with the court system.The court evaluated the petitioner's desire to return to India and adhere to any conditions set down by the court.
Justice Seshasayee referenced the ruling in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (II), which affirmed a criminal's entitlement to live with dignity while relinquishing only their freedom of movement.
The Court concluded that if a convicted individual has certain rights, then an accused person, who has not yet been adjudicated guilty, should also be able to maintain his right to live with dignity, which includes the right to travel internationally.
The Court further referenced K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), which affirmed the right to privacy as a basic right under Article 21, including all facets of personal life, including travel.
The Court recognized the apprehensions expressed by the CBI over the lack of an extradition treaty between India and Seychelles. Nonetheless, the Court said that these concerns should not be overblown to the point of intruding on the petitioner's basic rights. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's prior compliance with Court orders, as well as his promise to return, need careful consideration.
The Court acknowledged that limiting the petitioner's abroad travel would be equivalent to "house arrest," which would violate the Constitution's principles of justice and equality.
Justice Seshasayee underlined that the criminal justice system must prioritize the accused's presence at the trial and adherence to the court's authority. The limits put on the accused must only serve to ensure his appearance at the trial and should not interfere with his personal life or liberties.
The Court determined that the freedom to travel internationally is not inherently "need-based," and deemed the petitioner's desire to see his parents amid a familial emergency as reasonable and warranted.
The Court also examined the circumstances necessary to guarantee the petitioner's return to India. It underscored that while requirements were essential for ensuring the petitioner's participation in the trial, they should not be excessively burdensome or unfeasible to meet. The Court granted the petitioner permission to go to Malaysia for one month, contingent upon particular requirements to assure his return.
The stipulations included submitting an updated travel itinerary to both the trial court and the CBI, staying only at the location specified in his affidavit, surrendering his passport to the Indian High Commission in Malaysia, and signing a personal bond for Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties.
It was necessary for one of the guarantors to possess a valid Indian passport and submit it to the CBI until the petitioner returned. The Look Out Circular issued by the CBI was set to be revoked while the petitioner was in Malaysia.
