Toolkit Case: Delhi HC Denies Disha Ravi’s Request to Modify the Bail Condition Regarding International Travel

Disha Ravi, a climate activist who is being prosecuted for allegedly sharing a toolkit related to the 2021 farmers’ protest, asked the Delhi High Court on Tuesday to modify the requirement that she obtain prior approval from the trial court before leaving the country. The Delhi High Court rejected her request.

She had pleaded with the high court to change the requirement so that she would notify the trial court before traveling overseas.

The trial court’s ruling, according to the top court, displayed a delicate balancing act since “it is not a blanket ban or infringement of her fundamental right to travel abroad but a reasonable restriction by the court intended to enforce through the legal system.”

While giving the trial court enough time to issue a ruling, the high court mandated that the State expeditiously file an appropriate response to an application for permission to travel abroad submitted by Ravi to the trial court at least one month prior to her intended visit.

According to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s ruling, the trial court order is such that the absence or unavailability of the accused has no effect on the investigation or the trial and only minimally interferes with the petitioner’s convenience and constitutional rights.

The high court observed that it is a legitimate need to get permission from the court before traveling overseas, and that this request has never been turned down for her in the past.

Therefore, the petition seeking deletion of the bail condition imposed by the February 23, 2021 ruling is refused, it added.

On February 13, 2021, a Cyber Cell team of the Delhi Police detained Ravi in Bengaluru for allegedly sharing on social media a toolkit related to the farmers’ protest that was taking place at the time against the Centre’s three farm laws. On February 23, 2021, a trial court in this location granted Ravi bail.

She was subject to a number of restrictions from the trial court, one of which being that she was not allowed to leave the country without the court’s prior approval.

Ravi argued before the high court that she needed to go overseas regularly and on short notice, thus she needed the bail requirement that she get prior approval from the trial court before leaving the country modified.

Her attorney had contended that the trial court’s prior approval need for bail was inconveniencing her.

The state’s attorney, however, had objected to the plea, claiming that just because she found the condition uncomfortable didn’t mean it could be changed.

In its ruling, the high court said that just because Ravi is having trouble with a restriction that the trial court set does not automatically warrant its removal or constitute a breach of her basic right to go abroad.

The high court said that the inconvenience to the person accused would be outweighed by the major purpose of a fair inquiry by the State against a person suspected of inciting enmity among citizens of the nation, etc. while an investigation is ongoing.

The inquiry into the incident is still ongoing, it was observed, since the investigative agency is still gathering information from overseas intermediaries, which are significant pieces of evidence.

“While the right to travel freely abroad is one that is much valued, it is not unrestricted, and the criminal courts have a responsibility to prevent abuse of the right to bail by people.

“The courts are required to balance the accused’s right to personal liberty and the right to travel abroad against the legitimate concerns of ensuring the accused’s presence during trial, and protecting the interests of the victims and the State as well as the investigating agency…,” the high court said.

The high court ruled that although it does not impair the petitioner’s basic right to travel freely overseas, it also cannot impair the prosecution agency’s right to guarantee that the inquiry is carried out and concluded without delay.

“In this court’s judgment, the trial court considered all of the relevant facts when granted bail in this matter and, in its wisdom, established a condition that, in the event the petitioner wants to go abroad, prior court approval would be required.

It said that the need for court approval before traveling overseas has been put in place “to secure the petitioner’s presence and also to ensure that she is not able to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.”