Enough is enough. There are moments when the judiciary has to look beyond the immediate humanitarian plea before it and consider the larger interests of the nation. The application by US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke seeking permission to travel to the United States to meet his family is one such moment. VanDyke is not an ordinary litigant seeking permission for a family visit. He is an accused in an ongoing National Investigation Agency investigation involving allegations of illegal entry, links with ethnic armed groups in Bharat and Myanmar and the imparting of drone-warfare training. The NIA has maintained that its investigation into possible offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is continuing. Yes, VanDyke has obtained default bail. But that bail was granted on a statutory ground after the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The court noted that the chargesheet filed by the NIA was limited to provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act while the UAPA investigation remained pending. The court nevertheless directed VanDyke not to leave Delhi, to cooperate with the investigation and to appear whenever called. That distinction matters enormously. Default bail is not an acquittal. It is not a judicial declaration that the allegations have disappeared. Nor does it bring an unfinished national-security investigation to an end. So why should Bharat facilitate his departure from the country? The humanitarian argument—that an accused wants to meet his family—is understandable. His lawyers have cited the health and advanced age of his mother. But compassion cannot become a substitute for caution when the individual is a foreign national facing allegations connected with armed groups and an investigation that has not reached its conclusion. Once he boards a flight to the United States, the practical difficulties of securing his presence in Bharat could increase substantially. A court may impose conditions, demand a substantial bond or seek diplomatic assurances. But no monetary bond can automatically guarantee that an accused living outside Bharat’s jurisdiction will return whenever an investigating agency or court requires his presence. The judiciary has a duty to protect individual liberty. But it also has a duty to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the security of the nation. These principles are not mutually exclusive. Bharat cannot afford a situation in which a person facing an unfinished national-security investigation is permitted to simply leave the country because a humanitarian argument has been advanced. The question is not whether VanDyke has a family. Of course he does. The question is whether his family circumstances should override the legitimate requirement that an accused in a serious, ongoing investigation remain within the jurisdiction of the court. They should not. And this is where the principle must be made absolutely clear. National security cannot have different standards for different nationalities.
If a Bharatiya travels to another country and is accused of smuggling weapons, training armed groups, facilitating terrorism or helping forces wage violence against that country’s government, should Bharat demand that he be allowed to return simply because his family wants him home? Certainly, not. He should face the laws of that sovereign nation. He should submit to its investigation and judicial process. He should establish his innocence before the competent court there. Bharat would rightly expect that country’s judiciary to place the integrity of its investigation, the security of its people and the rule of its law above the convenience of the accused. What Bharat expects for its citizens abroad, it must be prepared to accept for foreign nationals here. There can be no double standard in the fight against terrorism and armed violence. Humanitarian considerations deserve sympathy. But they cannot become an escape route from accountability. Once allegations concern weapons, armed groups, cross-border activity and military or drone training, the issue goes far beyond an individual’s personal inconvenience. A family reunion is temporary. A national-security breach can have consequences that last for generations. The judiciary does not have to choose between the Constitution and national security. National security itself must be protected within the constitutional framework. The accused must receive due process, legal representation and a fair hearing. But due process does not mean that every request for international travel must automatically be granted. Nor does judicial compassion mean judicial vulnerability. The court has already imposed a significant condition by directing VanDyke not to leave Delhi. That condition recognises the importance of keeping him available while the investigation proceeds. Permitting him to leave India would inevitably raise the question of whether that very safeguard is being undermined. And what happens if he does not return? That is not a question to be answered after he has left. The State cannot be expected to gamble with a national-security investigation and then attempt to repair the damage through diplomatic channels. Extradition treaties and diplomatic assurances may exist, but bringing an accused back from another jurisdiction can be a far more complicated proposition than preventing his departure in the first place. The larger principle is therefore simple. Liberty under law does not mean liberty to walk out of the jurisdiction while a serious national-security investigation remains alive. The judiciary must protect the rights of the accused. But it must also protect the rights of millions of citizens who expect the State to keep them safe. The humanitarian plea of one individual cannot automatically outweigh the security concerns of an entire nation. And let this be equally clear to every Bharatiya: if any of us is accused of similar conduct on foreign soil, we have no moral or legal basis to demand a different standard. If we respect the sovereignty and laws of other nations, we must expect the same respect for Bharat. Compassion cannot compromise national security. Nationality cannot dilute accountability. And humanitarian considerations cannot become a passport out of justice. A democratic nation does not deny an accused due process. But neither does it surrender its security obligations in the name of misplaced compassion. National security first. Justice without borders.
