Back
Seeks Police Response on Natasha Narwal's UK Travel Plea for Academic Conference
The on Monday issued notice to the on a plea by Natasha Narwal, an accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom to attend an academic conference and conduct related research. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, directed the police to file a response, scheduling the next hearing for Thursday. The development marks the latest chapter in a legal battle over an accused’s while facing serious charges under the .
Natasha Narwal, who was granted bail in
, had approached the High Court after a trial court rejected her application on
, to visit the UK from
. She seeks to present a research paper at the 23rd Annual Historical Materialism Conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, and to conduct archival work at the British Library and the University of Warwick, where she is pursuing a PhD on
"Gender and Carceral Labour in India"
since
.
Trial Court Cites UAPA Gravity
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the dismissed Narwal’s original application, observing that the is not absolute and that the pendency of UAPA proceedings was a relevant consideration. The judge noted that the case was still at the stage of and that the offences for which Narwal had been chargesheeted carry severe punishments, including and, in certain circumstances, the .
“Although mere pendency of a criminal case doesn't automatically mean that an accused can never travel abroad but the Court must definitely see the nature of the case and the overall circumstances,” the trial court remarked. It concluded that, given the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of proceedings, permitting Narwal to leave the country would not be appropriate.
The trial court also highlighted the imposed by the , which required Narwal to and obtain prior court permission before any international travel. The prosecution had expressed apprehension that Narwal might seek in the UK and not return, pointing to the absence of confirmed travel bookings and raising questions about the verification of her PhD admission documents.
Academic Opportunity vs.
Narwal’s counsel countered the prosecution’s fears, arguing that she had regularly attended court proceedings, complied with all , and was not a . They submitted that the conference required in-person participation, and that Narwal would book tickets only after receiving court approval to avoid financial loss. The paper she intends to present is titled “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction,” reflecting her ongoing doctoral research.
The trial court, however, remained unconvinced. It noted that the FIR in the case was registered in , while Narwal began her PhD in —during the . The court further observed that the , while granting bail, had specifically directed the surrender of the passport given the seriousness of the matter. The judge held that the nature of the allegations and the overall circumstances did not warrant permission to travel.
High Court to Review
Justice Amit Bansal’s issuance of notice suggests that the High Court will carefully examine whether the trial court exercised its properly. Narwal has also challenged a similar order in another Delhi riots case, which will be heard separately by Justice Girish Kathpalia. The ’s response, expected by Thursday, will likely outline its concerns regarding Narwal’s proposed travel.
The case raises critical questions about the balance between an accused’s fundamental right to travel under and the state’s interest in ensuring the presence of the accused during trial, particularly in cases involving stringent laws like the UAPA. Courts have previously allowed accused persons to travel abroad for professional or academic purposes, provided adequate safeguards—such as or depositing passport with the court—are in place. However, the trial court here emphasized that the and the early stage of proceedings militated against granting such permission.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
Legal experts note that the outcome of this petition could set a precedent for other UAPA accused seeking to travel for academic or professional reasons. While the right to travel is not absolute, courts have often recognized that preventing an accused from pursuing legitimate educational or research opportunities may cause , especially when the accused has demonstrated compliance with .
The ’s eventual decision will also test the limits of the trial court’s . If the High Court overturns the refusal, it may signal that a pending UAPA case, by itself, is not an . Conversely, if it upholds the trial court’s order, it could reinforce the view that the severity of the charges and the stage of proceedings are paramount considerations.
Conclusion
As the legal community awaits the ’s response and the next hearing on Thursday, Natasha Narwal’s case highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and state security under the UAPA. The High Court’s ruling will be closely watched by practitioners handling similar matters, as it may clarify the criteria for granting travel permissions to accused persons in serious criminal cases. For now, Narwal’s academic plans remain on hold, pending the court’s decision.
