Bombay High Court Orders Shilpa Shetty & Raj Kundra to Deposit ₹60 Crore Before London Travel
Court Balances Right to Travel Abroad with Financial Accountability
Landmark Order Highlights Judicial Approach to High-Value Disputes
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: December 12, 2025:
In a high-profile case that has drawn national attention, the Bombay High Court has ordered Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband, businessman Raj Kundra, to deposit ₹60 crore before they are permitted to travel to London. The directive comes amid ongoing financial disputes and litigation, reflecting the judiciary’s cautious approach in cases involving large sums of money and cross-border travel.
Also Read: Skills Young Lawyers Need for Banking, Finance, and Insolvency Law Careers
The order has sparked debate about the balance between an individual’s fundamental right to travel abroad and the need to ensure financial accountability in pending cases.
Background of the Case
Raj Kundra, known for his business ventures in real estate, entertainment, and technology, has faced multiple controversies in recent years. The current dispute involves allegations of financial irregularities and pending liabilities. Creditors approached the court seeking safeguards, fearing that the couple’s travel abroad could complicate recovery proceedings.
Shilpa Shetty, though not directly involved in the business transactions, was also named in the petition given her joint financial interests with Kundra.
Court’s Observations
The Bombay High Court bench observed that:
- The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, but it is not absolute.
- Courts can impose reasonable restrictions when financial disputes involve large sums and potential risk of non-recovery.
- The deposit of ₹60 crore serves as a security measure, ensuring that creditors’ interests are protected while allowing the couple to exercise their right to travel.
The Court stressed that judicial orders must strike a balance between individual liberty and public interest.
Legal Context
Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad
The Supreme Court has previously held that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to personal liberty. However, courts have also clarified that this right can be regulated in cases involving criminal charges, financial disputes, or national security concerns.
Also Read: Gurugram 42,000 foreign liquor bottles Racket Bust Highlights India’s Strict Excise Laws
Precedents
- In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court recognised the right to travel abroad as fundamental.
- In financial disputes, courts have often required security deposits or undertakings before permitting foreign travel.
Implications of the Order
For Celebrities and Businesspersons
The ruling sends a strong message that financial accountability cannot be bypassed by citing personal liberty. High-profile individuals must comply with court directives before exercising rights like foreign travel.
For Creditors
The order strengthens creditor protection, ensuring that recovery proceedings are not jeopardised by cross-border complications.
For the Judiciary
The case highlights the judiciary’s evolving approach to balancing individual rights with financial safeguards, especially in high-value disputes.
Public Reaction
The order has generated widespread discussion:
- Supporters argue that the deposit ensures fairness and accountability.
- Critics claim that imposing such conditions restricts personal liberty and sets a precedent for excessive judicial control.
Social media platforms have been abuzz with debates, with many noting the intersection of celebrity status, financial disputes, and judicial oversight.
Expert Views
Also Read: Allahabad High Court Rules GST Notices Cannot Be Deemed Served Only by Portal Upload
Legal experts note that the ruling is consistent with judicial practice in financial disputes. Advocate opinions suggest that while the amount is substantial, it reflects the scale of liabilities involved. Experts also highlight that such orders are preventive, not punitive, aimed at ensuring compliance with ongoing proceedings.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s directive requiring Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra to deposit ₹60 crore before traveling to London underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing individual rights with financial accountability.
As India’s courts increasingly deal with high-value disputes involving celebrities and businesspersons, this ruling sets an important precedent: personal liberty must coexist with responsibility and transparency in financial matters.
GEO Keywords for Faster Searches
- Bombay High Court Shilpa Shetty Raj Kundra order
- ₹60 crore deposit before London travel
- Shilpa Shetty Raj Kundra financial dispute case
- Article 21 right to travel abroad India
- Bombay HC celebrity financial accountability ruling
- Raj Kundra London travel court condition
- Shilpa Shetty Raj Kundra creditor protection case
- Bombay High Court landmark order December 2025
- Judicial safeguards in financial disputes India
- Celebrity financial disputes Bombay HC ruling
Also Read: SEBI’s Investor Protection Guidelines Amid India’s ₹148 Trillion Wealth Boom