SC Allows Abhishek Banerjee Foreign Trip for Treatment

The Supreme Court has permitted Trinamool Congress leader and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee to travel abroad for three weeks for specialised eye treatment. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, set aside the Calcutta High Court order that had refused to relax restrictions on his foreign travel. The decision underscores the Court’s view that an individual retains the right to seek medical care of their choice and to travel abroad, subject to reasonable conditions linked to pending proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s Order

On 10 August 2026, the three-judge bench allowed Banerjee’s plea challenging the High Court’s refusal. The apex court permitted him to travel for a period of three weeks for treatment of his eye. Permission was granted on the condition that he travel only on his diplomatic passport and that he share full details of his itinerary with the investigating agency. These details include the places he is likely to visit, the hospital where treatment will be undertaken, the date of return, and particulars of the return flight. The Court also accepted the request that the travel and treatment particulars remain confidential and not be placed in the public domain.

The order effectively cancelled the earlier restraint imposed by the Calcutta High Court and cleared the way for the planned medical trip.

Background to the Restriction

The foreign travel restriction had been attached as a condition when the High Court stayed Banerjee’s arrest in a case arising from an alleged provocative remark made during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign. When Banerjee later sought relaxation of that condition to travel for medical treatment, the High Court declined. On 5 August 2026, the High Court noted that he had not appeared before a medical board at the state-run SSKM Hospital for an assessment of whether treatment abroad was necessary. The High Court indicated that such an assessment would have helped it decide the request.

Banerjee approached the Supreme Court against that refusal. The apex court had earlier directed the High Court to take up the matter expeditiously; after the High Court declined relief, the challenge reached the Supreme Court for final consideration.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The State of West Bengal opposed the request. Appearing through the Additional Solicitor General, the State pointed to multiple criminal cases pending against Banerjee—reports mentioned around sixteen—and expressed the apprehension that he might not return if permitted to leave the country. It was also contended that adequate medical facilities existed in India and that foreign travel was therefore unnecessary.

Banerjee’s counsel submitted that he required specialised treatment abroad for an eye condition linked to injuries sustained in a road accident in 2016, and that continuity of care was important. It was further pointed out that he holds a diplomatic passport and that his family and political responsibilities remain in India, reducing any realistic risk of absconding.

The Court’s Reasoning

The bench was not persuaded by the State’s objections on the facts of this request. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that every individual has the right to go abroad and the right to choose the medical assistance he or she should receive. The Court indicated that the choice of treatment is not for the State to decide. Remarks from the bench also noted that the specific case in which the travel condition had been imposed related to an election speech, and that the existence of other cases did not automatically justify denying a time-bound medical trip when appropriate safeguards could be put in place.

By requiring the use of the diplomatic passport and the prior sharing of a detailed itinerary with the investigating agency, the Court balanced the individual’s medical and travel rights against the needs of the pending investigation.

Significance of the Ruling

The order reinforces two principles that frequently arise in cases involving public figures facing criminal proceedings. First, the right to personal liberty includes the freedom to travel abroad and to select medical care, even when criminal cases are pending, provided the court is satisfied that conditions can adequately protect the investigation. Second, the mere existence of multiple cases or the availability of treatment within India does not, by itself, extinguish that right. Each request must be examined on its own facts, the nature of the pending allegations, the length of the proposed absence, and the safeguards offered.

For Banerjee, the decision removes an immediate barrier to obtaining the treatment he has sought. For the investigating agency, the conditions ensure that the travel remains transparent to those responsible for the case and that the duration is strictly limited to three weeks.

Conditions and Compliance

The permission is tightly framed. Travel is restricted to the diplomatic passport. Full particulars of the journey, accommodation, hospital and return must be furnished to the investigating agency in advance. The three-week window is finite. Any deviation from these terms would expose the permission to further judicial scrutiny. The Court’s direction that the details remain confidential protects legitimate privacy interests around medical treatment while still enabling official oversight.

A Measured Outcome

The Supreme Court’s intervention resolves a short but contested chapter in the proceedings arising from the election-related case. By setting aside the High Court’s refusal and substituting a conditional permission, the apex court has affirmed that medical necessity and personal choice retain weight even in the presence of criminal litigation. At the same time, it has preserved the investigating agency’s ability to monitor the temporary absence.

Abhishek Banerjee may now proceed with the planned three-week foreign trip for eye treatment under the conditions laid down. The order stands as a reminder that restrictions on liberty, including the liberty to travel for healthcare, must remain proportionate, reasoned and open to correction when a higher court finds the balance has tilted too far against the individual.

Read more – mesmerizemovies.com