Back
Supreme Court Allows TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Foreign Travel for Eye Treatment on Diplomatic Passport
The on Monday permitted MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for three weeks in September to undergo eye treatment, brushing aside the 's apprehension that he might flee the country given the multiple criminal cases against him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana allowed the appeal while imposing carefully calibrated conditions, including travel on his diplomatic passport and full disclosure of his medical itinerary to investigating agencies.
In its order, the Court stated:
"The applicant is permitted to travel abroad for a period of three weeks in September. The applicant shall travel on his diplomatic passport. It is stated that he has no other passport other than the diplomatic passport."
Banerjee has been directed to furnish the itinerary of his visit, including his place of residence in the foreign country, details of the doctors and hospital where he proposes to undergo treatment, the period of his stay and his flight details. The Court added that the information submitted would be used by the investigating agencies for their purposes and would remain confidential.
A Dispute Over Jurisdiction, Timing and Necessity
The case traces back to a series of FIRs registered against the Diamond Harbour MP, most of them lodged in the weeks after the West Bengal Assembly election results were declared on . Banerjee had approached the seeking over alleged comments made against leaders and workers of the at a public meeting on , during the run-up to the second phase of the state assembly polls. His plea, filed under , did not seek outright quashing of the FIRs but rather breathing room to argue whether eleven complaints and FIRs, filed in quick succession, amounted to a coordinated campaign rather than genuine law enforcement.
The , however, declined to immediately grant him permission to travel abroad. On , it dismissed Banerjee's plea seeking permission to travel for treatment, observing that he had been unwilling to appear before a medical board at the state-run the day after the hearing. The High Court noted that had Banerjee appeared before the medical board, its assessment could have helped the court determine whether he genuinely needed to seek treatment overseas. It also pointed out that Kolkata boasted several reputed eye clinics and that it was not inclined to allow the petitioner to travel abroad while the investigation was underway.
The High Court had earlier extended Banerjee's until in the case related to his alleged remarks, directing him to cooperate with the investigation and barring foreign travel without prior court approval.
The Supreme Court Hearing: A Rebuke of the State's Fears
Challenging the High Court's refusal, Banerjee moved the Supreme Court. On , the apex court directed the High Court to reconsider the plea within a week. , appearing for Banerjee, argued that the High Court's backlog—with around 1,500 cases in the combined list—meant a final decision could be delayed indefinitely, defeating the very purpose of seeking timely medical treatment. He emphasized that Banerjee was a sitting Member of Parliament whose family was in India, and that he was willing to travel on his diplomatic passport and even deposit his personal passport with the authorities.
The
, through
, strenuously opposed the plea. Raju told the bench that there were 16 cases pending against Banerjee.
"We apprehend that he may not come back,"
he submitted. In earlier proceedings, he had argued:
"He was all-powerful. Nobody would have dared register before 5th May. The number of cases now against him… So the likelihood of not returning is more today."
The bench was unimpressed. Justice Bagchi observed:
"Every individual has a
. Every individual has a right to choose his medical treatment. That is not for you to decide."
The Court further observed that seeking treatment for an illness or condition sometimes forms part of the .
Legal Analysis: The Right to Travel and the Right to Choose Medical Care
The Supreme Court's ruling is significant for its firm articulation of an individual's and to choose medical treatment, even when criminal investigations are pending. While the is not an absolute fundamental right and can be reasonably restricted, the Court's observations signal that such restrictions must be and cannot be imposed arbitrarily. The bench appeared to draw a distinction between legitimate investigative concerns and that an accused may flee the jurisdiction.
By permitting Banerjee to travel on his diplomatic passport while requiring detailed disclosure of his itinerary, the Court struck a practical balance: it preserved the investigating agencies' need for oversight while refusing to let unsubstantiated apprehension override an individual's health decisions. The order also implicitly recognizes that the availability of domestic medical facilities, while relevant, does not automatically negate a patient's right to seek treatment from a specialist abroad with whom they have an established doctor-patient relationship.
The procedural background also underscores the Supreme Court's concern that litigants should not be denied relief merely due to judicial delays, particularly when health is at stake. , appearing for the in earlier proceedings, had suggested that the matter be fixed for hearing on a specific date, leading to the initial direction for the High Court to take a final call within a week.
Implications for Legal Practice
The judgment carries practical implications for criminal practitioners. Accused persons facing multiple FIRs often struggle to obtain permission for foreign travel, even for compelling reasons such as medical treatment. This decision clarifies that courts must examine such requests on their merits, with due regard for the , and cannot mechanically deny relief based solely on the existence of pending cases.
The conditions imposed—travel on a specified passport, itinerary disclosure, and confidentiality of those details for investigative purposes—offer a template that courts may adopt in analogous situations. The ruling also highlights the growing judicial recognition of health-related rights as an integral facet of under .
Looking Ahead
For Banerjee, the order clears the way for him to seek timely medical treatment without further litigation. The broader legal significance, however, lies in the Supreme Court's reaffirmation that the right to choose one's medical treatment and the right to travel are not easily brushed aside, even in the face of aggressive opposition from the investigating state. As the underlying FIRs continue to be litigated, the case remains an important reference point on the intersection of criminal procedure, , and health rights.
