Fair Play Beyond the Courtroom: High Court Affirms Athlete’s Right to Travel

In a significant ruling that reinforces the alignment between judicial accountability and individual liberty, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted an international shooter, Chirag Kumar Sardana, permission to travel abroad for professional training. In a judgment that emphasized compassion as a necessary companion to justice, the Court modified a lower court’s restriction, allowing the petitioner to attend shooting camps in Slovenia and the USA until January 2026.

The Backdrop: A Career at the Crossfire

The petitioner, a reputed sportsman facing an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Arms Act, 1959, found his professional progress stalled by a trial court order. While he had been granted permission to travel earlier, the Hisar Sessions Court had limited the release of his passport only until August 12, 2025—the date set for framing charges.

For an athlete whose training cycle extends through the end of the year, this limitation presented a potential career hurdle. The petitioner sought recourse under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023, arguing that his athletic commitments required him to be present in Slovenia and the USA until December 31, 2025.

Legal Maneuvers: The Battle of Presence vs. Potential

The State argued that the petitioner’s physical presence was essential for the framing of charges, standard procedure in criminal trials. Conversely, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the veracity of these invitations had already been verified by the respondents and that the accused had a proven history of participating in international events without evading court proceedings upon his return.

The Court scrutinized the necessity of the accused’s continuous presence, noting that the law does not necessitate the presence of the accused on every single date of hearing if legal counsel is effectively representing them.

Precedents and Principles of Liberty

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar leaned heavily on the landmark doctrine established in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , which solidified that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental manifestation of personal liberty. The Court also drew from the ruling in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra , where the Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings should not become a tool to render constitutional safeguards illusory.

The Court underscored that conditions imposed by a trial court must be proportional to the objective they seek to achieve—in this case, ensuring the presence of the accused without needlessly crippling his livelihood.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a profound perspective on the intersection of human rights and criminal procedure:

• "While accountability and fairness are integral facets of justice, the idea of just justice can only be realised through compassion."
• "It must be remembered that justice and compassion are mutually inclusive."
• "The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused."
• "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual."

A Conditional Freedom

The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, permitting the shooter to travel until January 5, 2026, subject to strict conditions. These include the requirement that the petitioner shall not stall trial proceedings, shall not dispute his identity, and must consent to the recording of prosecution evidence in his absence, provided his counsel remains present to defend his interests.

This decision serves as a beacon for future cases, signaling that while the wheels of justice must continue to turn, they need not grind the professional lives of the accused to a halt—provided that the integrity of the trial remains protected through appropriate legal safeguards.