“Merely because a person is an accused, he cannot be deprived of his right to travel abroad,” the Allahabad High Court observed, permitting The Wire’s editor Siddharth Varadarajan to travel to the United States in connection with 2020 FIRs in which the trial is yet to begin, while accepting his apology for not surrendering his passport.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has permitted the editor of the news portal The Wire, Siddharth Varadarajan, to travel to New York for a scheduled programme, holding that a person cannot be deprived of the right to travel abroad merely because he is an accused, and noting that the trial in the 2020 FIRs against him has not commenced even after six years [Siddharth Varadarajan v. State of U.P.].
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh permitted the travel between September 28 and October 7, 2026, subject to conditions, and also accepted Varadarajan’s unconditional apology for failing to surrender his passport as directed in an earlier order. The allegations in the FIRs are untested; the trial has not begun, and Varadarajan is on anticipatory bail and presumed innocent.
The background
Varadarajan faces two FIRs registered in Ayodhya in 2020, relating to a report published by The Wire on March 31, 2020, and to tweets he posted about it on March 31 and April 1, 2020, concerning the reporting around a quarantine facility, which referred to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. While seeking anticipatory bail in 2020, it had been stated on his behalf that an error in the report was corrected as soon as it came to his notice and the incorrect version deleted. The High Court granted him anticipatory bail on May 15, 2020, subject to conditions, including conditions concerning travel abroad and the surrender of his passport.
In the present proceedings, Varadarajan sought a clarification of those 2020 conditions, contending that the relevant conditions had not become operative since the trial had not commenced, and sought permission to travel to New York from September 28 to October 7, 2026.
The apology over the passport
During the hearing, the Court questioned Varadarajan about his failure to surrender the passport as directed in the 2020 order. He submitted that he could not do so within the stipulated time because he had misinterpreted the bail conditions, and that no summons or notice had until then been served on him by the trial court. He tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the non-compliance, undertook to appear before the trial court on October 12, 2026, immediately after returning from abroad, and to surrender his passport on that date.
The Court accepted the apology, finding the explanation bona fide and noting the undertaking to appear before the trial court, while cautioning him to be more careful in future and to strictly abide by its directions.
The State’s objection, and the Court’s view
The State opposed the travel request, submitting that several summons had been issued since 2020, that Varadarajan had failed to deposit his passport in compliance with the 2020 order, and that this raised an apprehension that he might not return to India and could evade the process of law.
The Court was not persuaded. It noted that Varadarajan had travelled abroad several times in the past and had returned to India each time, so there was no basis for the apprehension that he would not return. It further observed that, despite the lapse of six years, the trial had not commenced, and that the State had not seriously taken steps to secure his presence before the court. Weighing these factors, along with the nature of the offences, the Court took the view that his right to travel could not be denied. Recording the settled position, the Bench held:
“It is a settled law that merely because a person is an accused, he cannot be deprived of his right to travel abroad.”
The Court also noted that most of the alleged offences were bailable, and that the offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment.
The conditions imposed
Finding the stated reason for the travel genuine and supported by documents, and no material to show that he would abscond, the Court permitted Varadarajan to travel to New York from September 28 to October 7, 2026, on conditions. He was directed to return to India on or before October 9, 2026, and to appear before the trial court on October 12, 2026; to furnish details of his itinerary, place of stay, contact number and email; and not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. He was further directed to deposit his passport within a week of returning to India. If he failed to return within the stipulated period, the Court held, the State would be at liberty to take coercive steps. The passport authorities and the Bureau of Immigration were directed not to obstruct his travel during the permitted period merely on account of the pendency of the criminal case, subject to production of a certified copy of the order.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms a well-settled but frequently-litigated principle: that the right to travel abroad is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and that it is not automatically forfeited by the mere fact of being an accused in a pending case. Courts balance that right against the legitimate interest in securing an accused’s presence for trial, and will ordinarily permit travel where the apprehension of flight is not made out, particularly where the accused has a record of returning from earlier trips and the offences are not of the gravest kind.
The order is also notable for the weight the Court gave to the prolonged delay: with the trial not having begun in six years and the State not having taken serious steps to advance it, the Court was disinclined to let stale, unenforced conditions curtail the accused’s liberty. At the same time, the decision is carefully conditioned, fixed return and appearance dates, itinerary disclosure, a bar on tampering with evidence, and passport surrender on return, so that the permission to travel is balanced with safeguards for the prosecution. The order decides nothing on the merits of the FIRs, which remain to be tested at a trial that is yet to commence, and the accused continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence.
Case Title: Siddharth Varadarajan v. State of U.P.
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: September 24, 2026