Introduction
In a recent ruling in Vijay Singh Dogra v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office[i], the Delhi High Court confronted the delicate balance between an individual’s fundamental rights and the nation’s economic interests. The Petitioner sought relief under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), which corresponds to s. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), challenging a look out circular (‘LOC’) issued against him. The Petitioner argued that the LOC, which prevented him from travelling abroad, infringed on his constitutional right to personal liberty under a. 21 of the Constitution. However, the complexity of the case stemmed from an ongoing investigation into Sahara Group companies, with which the Petitioner had significant involvement, raising concerns about his potential flight risk.
This decision reflects a recurring judicial theme in cases where individuals with significant or alleged economic ties face travel restrictions. The courts are often tasked with assessing whether the individual’s needs outweigh the public interest in ensuring that ongoing investigations into economic fraud are not compromised by their potential absence from the country.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner sought permission from the High Court to travel abroad from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024 to assist his son with his admission to the New York Film Academy and to visit his daughter in Dubai. Earlier, the Petitioner had applied for a similar permission to travel between 25.05.2024 and 17.06.2024, but the dates were altered due to a delay in the Court’s decision.
The Petitioner argued that his international presence was crucial for his son’s admission process in New York and that he intended to meet his daughter, who was studying in Dubai. He emphasized that the restrictions on his travel were excessive, considering he had fully cooperated with the investigation and posed no flight risk.
The Respondent opposed the application, referring to a previous order by the Ld. Special Judge at Dwarka Court, which had denied the Petitioner’s travel request. The Respondent also highlighted multiple rejected applications by the Petitioner seeking similar relief. It was alleged that the Petitioner was a director in eight Sahara Group companies linked to ongoing investigations. Although the Petitioner’s companies were not directly under investigation, authorities found a complex financial web connecting these entities to the principal company investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Documents presented before the Ld. Special Judge indicated that the Petitioner also held positions in foreign companies, complicating the investigation into the Sahara Group’s financial dealings. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner posed a high flight risk due to his financial resources and family ties abroad, and permitting him to travel could jeopardize the ongoing investigation.
Held
The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Ld. Special Judge declined the Petitioner’s request to travel abroad, finding that he failed to provide sufficient justification. The Court observed that while the Petitioner claimed his presence was necessary for his son’s admission to New York, no substantial reasons or evidence were presented to demonstrate why his presence was indispensable. Additionally, the Court held that the Petitioner’s daughter could easily travel to India to meet him, thereby negating the need for him to travel to Dubai.
It was observed that the sealed documents reviewed by the Ld. Special Judge suggested that the Petitioner had not been forthcoming with all relevant documents, raising concerns about his intentions. The judgments in P. Chidambaram v. CBI[ii] and Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant Director[iii] were deemed inapplicable to the Petitioner’s case since he had not adequately justified the urgency or necessity of his travel.
The Court emphasized that the balance of convenience and the national interest in ongoing financial investigations outweighed the Petitioner’s personal right to travel. It was noted that both the Ld. Special Judge and the High Court had repeatedly denied previous requests for international travel. Special Judge and the High Court, indicating a pattern of frivolous applications. Given the ongoing nature of the investigation and the Petitioner’s financial resources, the Court determined that lifting the LOC posed too great a risk to the investigation.
Our Analysis
The Delhi High Court’s decision reflects an increasingly common judicial approach where economic offences intersect with individual liberties. The right to travel, although a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under a. 21, is not absolute and must be balanced against broader public interests, particularly when economic fraud investigations are involved.
While the Court acknowledged that restrictions on international travel could infringe upon the Petitioner’s personal liberties, it emphasized that national economic interests and the need for transparency in ongoing investigations superseded individual rights in this case. This stance is consistent with the Court’s previous ruling in Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh v. SFIO[iv], where similar restrictions were imposed on a businessman involved in a large-scale financial investigation. In both cases, the Court recognized the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of the Petitioner’s continued presence in India for the integrity of the investigations.
Though the decision prioritizes national economic interests over personal liberties, it raises a subtle critique: the necessity for an individual to prove and justify their indispensability in exercising personal freedoms. This could signal an emerging pattern in the Delhi High Court’s handling of high-profile financial investigations. The Petitioner’s reliance on precedents such as Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) was dismissed rather abruptly, suggesting that economic offences are now treated with heightened scrutiny, particularly when large corporate entities and international financial dealings are involved.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 166 taxmann.com 136 (Delhi), dated: 13.08.2024.
[ii] (2020) 4 SCC (Crl) 528.
[iii] W.P (Crl.) 1315/2005, dated: 11.08.2010.
[iv] [2024] 164 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi).
Authored by Srishty Jaura, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Comments