Supreme Court Upholds Right to Travel Abroad for Medical Treatment
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for eye surgery, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and privacy. The court dismissed the West Bengal government's objections, stating that there were no substantial barriers to his travel. The bench highlighted that every individual has the right to choose their medical treatment and should not be compelled to disclose their health records. This decision raises important questions about the nature of allegations against Banerjee and the implications for his ongoing legal challenges.
| Aug 10, 2026, 16:17 IST
Supreme Court's Ruling on Travel Rights
The Supreme Court reprimanded the West Bengal government on Monday regarding its opposition to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's request to travel abroad for eye surgery. The court emphasized that every individual has the right to travel internationally and choose their medical treatment. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan stated that there was no significant obstacle preventing Banerjee from traveling abroad for three weeks for his treatment, granting him permission with certain conditions to ensure his availability for investigative agencies.
Court Emphasizes Privacy Rights
During the proceedings, the bench reiterated that every person has the right to travel abroad and select their preferred medical care. The court also highlighted the right to privacy concerning Banerjee's medical condition, asserting that individuals should not be expected to disclose their health records publicly. The court affirmed that the decision to keep health records private is also a matter of privacy. The state opposed the petition, with Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju arguing that Banerjee faces at least 15 cases and raised concerns about the likelihood of him not returning to India due to pending criminal charges.
Questioning the Nature of Allegations
However, the bench questioned the nature of the allegations that led to the travel restrictions. They remarked, "We are discussing the nature of the allegations, which pertain to a speech made by him... there is no restriction in any other case against him." The court noted that Banerjee had previously been allowed to travel abroad even in cases with more serious allegations. The bench expressed confidence that the state is engaged in several serious investigations, stating, "He has been permitted to travel in cases with more severe charges before. What is the FIR in your case? Ultimately, it concerns comments made at a public meeting."