Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Grants Travel Permission to Activist Natasha Narwal
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On a Friday, the Delhi High Court permitted activist Natasha Narwal—an accused in the “larger conspiracy” case stemming from the February 24, 2020 northeast Delhi riots—to travel to the United Kingdom for academic purposes from November 2 to December 1. The order required Narwal to furnish a personal bond, submit an undertaking to return, and surrender her passport within 48 hours of her arrival back in India. She was also barred from making any public statements on the merits of the pending cases while abroad.
Background & Context
Narwal, a PhD scholar at the University of Warwick, has been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for alleged involvement in the 2020 riots, which left at least 53 dead and around 700 injured. After spending 14 months in custody, she was released on bail in 2021. A trial-court order dated October 6 had previously denied her request to travel, citing the seriousness of the UAPA charges, which carry penalties up to life imprisonment and, in some instances, the death penalty.
Official Statements & Responses
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the bench, emphasized that the constitutional right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed under Article 21, stating that the government “cannot keep the person here” while the trial proceeds. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the Delhi Police, warned that the UK’s extradition framework might impede Narwal’s return and argued that her physical presence was not essential, noting she had pursued her course virtually for three years. The court also directed the trial court to release Narwal’s passport and suspend any pending look-out circular during the travel period.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the financial safeguard required. Hindustan Times reports a single personal bond of INR1 lakh with Narwal’s brother as surety, whereas IndiaToday cites Rs 50,000 bonds in each of two riots-related cases. The precise bond amount remains unclear from the available reports.
Impact & Implications
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance that travel rights remain protected even for individuals facing serious terrorism-related charges, provided adequate safeguards are in place. It also highlights tensions between law-enforcement concerns over potential asylum claims and the courts’ commitment to constitutional freedoms. Observers note that the decision may set a precedent for future cases where accused individuals seek international academic engagement while pending prosecution continues.