Constitution – Supreme Court affirms right to life for foreign nationals
Constitution – The Supreme Court has clarified that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to foreign nationals as well, reinforcing the inclusive scope of fundamental rights in India.
The observation came from a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan while ordering the release of a Ugandan woman, Faridah Nakanwagi, who had remained in custody despite being granted bail in a narcotics-related case.
Court highlights prolonged detention despite bail order
The bench noted that the woman, aged 32, had been granted bail by a High Court order dated September 15, 2025. However, she continued to remain behind bars because she was unable to provide a solvent surety, a common requirement in bail conditions. This financial limitation effectively nullified the relief granted to her, the court observed.
While reviewing the matter, the judges pointed out that such situations highlight systemic challenges where individuals, particularly those with limited resources, are unable to secure their release despite favorable court orders.
Foreign national status complicates release process
The court also took into account the unique circumstances surrounding the accused’s status as a foreign national. It noted that even if she had managed to meet bail conditions, she might have been placed in a detention facility designated for foreign nationals instead of being fully released.
In its March 18 order, the bench remarked that no legal representation had appeared on behalf of the accused during proceedings, possibly due to logistical or administrative hurdles linked to her status.
Financial constraints should not override legal relief
Emphasizing the broader implications of the case, the bench stated that financial hardship should not act as a barrier to securing liberty once a court has deemed an accused eligible for bail. The judges acknowledged that many individuals are unable to arrange financial guarantees due to economic limitations, which should not result in indefinite incarceration.
The court stressed that once a person qualifies for bail on merit, additional conditions such as furnishing surety must not undermine the essence of that relief.
Article 21 applies universally, court reiterates
In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the bench underlined that Article 21 is not restricted to Indian citizens alone. The protection of life and personal liberty, it said, extends equally to foreign nationals facing prosecution within the country.
The judges observed that constitutional safeguards must be applied uniformly, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of nationality, are treated fairly under the law.
Court grants relief through personal bond
Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court directed that the accused be released upon furnishing a personal bond instead of a solvent surety. This alternative mechanism was aimed at ensuring that procedural requirements do not defeat substantive justice.
The decision is expected to have wider implications for similar cases where undertrial prisoners remain incarcerated solely due to their inability to meet financial conditions attached to bail orders.
The ruling also underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing procedural requirements with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals or foreign nationals navigating the legal system.