The Madras High Court recently affirmed that the right to life and dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, extends to non-citizens facing trial in India.

In this context, the Court stayed a lookout circular (LoC) issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Karthik Parthiban, a citizen of Seychelles, who is involved in a trial related to financial irregularities.

On September 10, Justice N. Seshasayee issued an order allowing Parthiban to travel to Malaysia to visit his wife and family. While acknowledging the CBI’s concerns regarding the possibility of Parthiban not returning to India if allowed to leave, Justice Seshasayee emphasized that the Court cannot let such apprehensions unduly influence its decision.

“If Article 21 by its very wording applies to non-citizens, then right to personal life of any foreign national facing a criminal charge in India must also be recognised as falling within his right to his dignified existence. Anything personal is part of one's privacy and unless it is enabled by law, it cannot be invaded, even if the accused person is a foreign national,” the High Court said.

**Reframed Press Release:**

The Madras High Court has reiterated that the responsibility of ensuring an accused’s presence in court lies with the judicial system, rather than the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), following its decision to stay a lookout circular (LoC) against Karthik Parthiban, a Seychelles citizen facing trial for financial irregularities.

In its ruling, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and the CBI had submitted its final report to the trial court. As such, the Court emphasized that it was now the trial court’s responsibility to ensure the accused's attendance for the framing of charges.

Parthiban approached the High Court after being impeded by the LoC, expressing his urgent need to travel to Malaysia to support his wife and elderly in-laws, who recently experienced a distressing burglary and assault.

While the CBI opposed his petition, arguing that Parthiban’s potential non-return could result in financial losses exceeding ₹600 crore due to his directorship in a company implicated in a large-scale financial scam, Parthiban countered by referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in *Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India*. He contended that his entitlement to a dignified life under Article 21 applied regardless of his foreign citizenship.

The Court concurred, stating that the criminal justice system’s primary concern should be ensuring that the accused submits to the court's jurisdiction and participates in the trial, rather than how the accused conducts their personal life or business.

Consequently, the Court stayed the LoC and permitted Parthiban to travel to Malaysia, contingent upon his return to India to engage in the criminal proceedings. The Court directed Parthiban to provide a travel schedule to both the trial court and the CBI and permitted his travel strictly according to this plan.

Advocate Vijayan Subramanian represented Parthiban, while Special Public Prosecutor K. Srinivasan appeared on behalf of the CBI.