The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee seeking permission to travel abroad for specialized eye treatment.
The matter was heard by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya after the Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the application within a week. Banerjee sought permission to continue treatment with specialists in the United States, where he had previously undergone eye surgeries.
During the hearing, the Court observed that it was not equipped to independently determine whether treatment abroad was medically necessary. To address this concern, the Court proposed the constitution of a medical board comprising experts from Kolkata's state-run SSKM Hospital to evaluate Banerjee's condition and assess whether equivalent treatment could be provided within India.
The Court emphasized that if the required treatment was available in India, there would be no compelling reason to permit foreign travel. It further noted that an independent medical opinion was essential before granting such relief.
Banerjee's counsel argued that continuity of treatment under the same specialists who had performed earlier surgeries in the United States was medically advisable. The defence also contended that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and that Banerjee had previously travelled overseas and returned within the permitted period.
The State opposed the application, arguing that there was no medical emergency necessitating overseas treatment. It further submitted that several legal proceedings involving Banerjee remained pending and that his foreign travel could affect ongoing investigations and court processes.
When asked whether he would appear before the medical board, Banerjee, through his counsel, declined to do so and maintained his request for treatment abroad. The Court held that without an independent medical assessment it could not determine the necessity of overseas treatment.
Observing that courts are not medical experts and must rely on objective medical evidence, Justice Bhattacharyya concluded that the petition could not be kept pending once the petitioner refused examination by the proposed medical board. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea.
The ruling underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny and medical verification in applications seeking foreign travel permissions on health grounds, particularly where ongoing legal proceedings are involved.