The Supreme Court on Monday gave Vivo executive Guangwen Kuang one month to obtain a guarantee from the Chinese Consulate that he would return to India to face prosecution in a pending money laundering case, if he were permitted to visit his ailing father in China [Guangwen Kuang @ Andrew v. Directorate of Enforcement].
Kuang is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in India, as a result of which he faces restrictions on leaving the country.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva today heard his challenge to the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant him permission to travel to Guangzhou in China, to visit his 82-year-old father, who is stated to be in a critical medical condition.
The High Court had declined permission after considering the seriousness of the allegations in the money laundering case, the magnitude of the alleged proceeds of crime, Kuang’s status as a foreign national and the absence of an extradition treaty between India and China.
Kuang has now moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's ruling.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Kuang, argued that the case raised a fundamental question: whether the right to travel, a facet of Article 21, could depend on a person’s nationality or the absence of an extradition treaty.
The Bench, however, insisted on an assurance that Kuang would return to face prosecution.
“All we need is a guarantee that you will come back and stand the prosecution,” the Court said.
It observed that Vivo could not furnish such a guarantee and asked Kuang to approach the Chinese Consulate instead.
“Why don’t you ask your Consulate to support you and give a guarantee, as they did in the other case? You are a Chinese national. Tell them that your father is 82 and ailing,” the Court remarked.
When Hariharan pressed the request on humanitarian grounds, the Court asked whether Kuang expected permission to leave India without even a semblance of a guarantee. It added that he could continue speaking to his father through video calls.
Hariharan asked whether the Consulate could independently verify his father’s medical condition, adding that the hospital details had been furnished.
“Chinese hospitals are at par with Indian hospitals; that benefit of doubt we will give them. They are a lot more disciplined than we are in regard to certificates being issued for the right price,” the Court replied.
The Bench eventually adjourned the case to enable Kuang to obtain the guarantee from the Chinese Consulate.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).