Bombay High Court Upholds Travel Rights, Reduces Onerous Deposit
The Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling on Monday, setting aside a condition that required former stockbroker Ketan Parekh to deposit a staggering Rs 27 crore with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to travel abroad. Instead, the court has directed him to submit a security deposit of Rs 5 lakh, stating that the original condition was neither reasonable nor proportional to the objective of ensuring his presence for trial.
The Legal Battle Over Travel Permissions
Parekh, who is facing criminal charges before a special Sebi court in Mumbai for his alleged role in a securities fraud case from 2000-01, had approached the high court challenging an order from earlier this month. The special court had granted him permission for two foreign trips but attached the massive financial precondition.
Parekh sought to travel to Thailand from November 5 to November 9 for a family vacation, followed by a trip to the UAE from November 18 to November 28 for a family wedding. His counsel, Senior Advocate Amit Desai, argued that Parekh had been permitted to travel abroad in the past and had always returned, proving he was not a flight risk.
Court's Reasoning: Right to Travel Cannot Be Defeated
Justice N J Jamadar, in the order, made crucial observations about the nature of the right to travel. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a facet of the right to life and personal liberty and cannot be subjected to unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, even for a person facing prosecution.
The order stated, "While granting permission to travel abroad, undoubtedly, the jurisdictional court is empowered to put conditions. However, the conditions ought not be so onerous that the right to travel abroad itself is defeated."
The High Court noted that the special judge's condition for depositing Rs 27 crore appeared to be a measure to enforce an interim order from January 2, which was related to alleged unlawful gains, rather than a condition to secure Parekh's presence at the trial. The court clarified that while Parekh must face consequences for not depositing the amount as per the Sebi Act, this cannot be made a precondition for travel in prosecutions that were initiated a decade ago.
Sebi's Stance and Past Objections
Representing Sebi, Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia argued that the court should not ignore the fact that Parekh had "indulged in manipulative trade while on bail." Sebi had previously opposed Parekh's plea for a four-month travel window last month, citing the possibility of him contravening securities laws and referring to the interim order that debarred him for front-running.
However, the High Court's ruling modifies only the financial deposit condition, leaving all other conditions set by the special court for his travel unchanged. This judgment underscores a critical balance between individual liberties and the legal processes of prosecution.
