The Delhi High Court has granted academic Natasha Narwal permission to travel to the United Kingdom from November 2 to December 1, 2026, setting aside a trial court order that had previously denied her request. In a significant ruling, the High Court emphasized that facing serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) does not justify a blanket restriction on a citizen's fundamental right to travel abroad. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, underscored that the petitioner has remained in compliance with her bail conditions since her release, and that her requested travel is strictly for legitimate academic purposes linked to her doctoral research.

Academic Milestones and Legal Hurdles

Natasha Narwal, a doctoral candidate at the University of Warwick, has been pursuing her PhD in Law remotely from India since October 2023. Her academic journey has reached a pivotal juncture where in-person engagement has become essential for the progress and qualification of her thesis. The University of Warwick issued a formal communication noting that her visit is required for the candidate to conduct her first in-person supervisory meetings, present ongoing work to faculty and peers, and access specialized archival collections at the British Library that are unavailable in digital formats.

Central to her request was her invitation to present a research paper titled “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction” at the Twenty-Third Annual Historical Materialism Conference. The event, held at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is recognized as a significant scholarly gathering within her field. Despite these credentials, the trial court initially rejected her application on October 6, 2026, citing the gravity of the allegations in two separate criminal cases connected to the 2020 Delhi riots. The prosecution had vehemently opposed the plea, expressing concerns that Narwal might seek asylum in the United Kingdom, thereby exploiting the country's stringent extradition laws to evade ongoing judicial proceedings in India.

Addressing the prosecution's concerns, Justice Bansal noted that while the state highlighted potential risks, there was no evidence of past misconduct by the petitioner. The court observed, “The fact that the petitioner has been charged of serious offences under the UAPA does not curtail her right to travel abroad in a blanket manner.” This pronouncement reinforces the principle that judicial discretion regarding travel permissions must be exercised proportionally, even when an accused is involved in high-stakes criminal litigation under special statutes.

Judicial Reasoning on Fundamental Rights

The High Court drew heavily upon the seminal Supreme Court ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , which established that the right to travel abroad is a protected facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted that such a right cannot be deprived except through a process established by law, and that individual circumstances—such as the nature of academic pursuit—must be weighed against the interests of justice and trial proceedings.

Justice Bansal further noted that the petitioner has maintained deep-rooted ties within the National Capital Region, where her family resides, effectively mitigating flight risk concerns. Given that the trial is expected to continue for a considerable duration, the court determined that permitting a temporary, purpose-driven absence would not prejudice the state's case. “The trial against the petitioner is likely to take considerable amount of time to be completed,” the court remarked, noting that since her release on bail, she has demonstrated consistent adherence to court-mandated obligations. The court dismissed the state’s argument that academic objectives could be achieved solely through virtual means, acknowledging that doctoral work involves scholarly exchanges and archival access that require physical presence to reach the necessary standard of academic rigor.

Strict Compliance and Safety Safeguards

To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the High Court imposed a series of rigorous safeguards as conditions for the travel permit. The petitioner and her brother, who has volunteered to stand as a surety, are required to submit a cumulative personal bond of ₹1,00,000 across both active cases. Furthermore, Narwal must provide a detailed itinerary, flight tickets, and visa documentation to the Investigating Officer before her departure.

Crucially, the court imposed a restrictive undertaking requiring the petitioner to return to India by December 2, 2026. As part of this undertaking, she is strictly prohibited from applying for asylum in the United Kingdom or making any public commentary regarding the merits of the ongoing cases during her stay abroad. By balancing the petitioner’s academic aspirations with the procedural requirements of the criminal justice system, the High Court has allowed a temporary suspension of the Look Out Circulars currently active against her.

The trial court has been directed to release the petitioner's passport immediately to facilitate her visa application and travel arrangements. Upon her return to India, Narwal must surrender her travel document to the trial court within 48 hours, ensuring a prompt resumption of her status as an accused currently on bail. This resolution marks a rare instance where the court has permitted international travel for a UAPA-accused, emphasizing that while criminal charges require careful monitoring, they do not inherently strip a person of the opportunity to pursue legitimate professional and educational milestones. The matter currently remains in the pre-trial stage, with the court ensuring that the academic timeline does not suffer due to the protracted nature of the judicial proceedings.