The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana government’s blanket restriction on foreign travel by its employees, holding that an entire class of citizens cannot be prevented from travelling abroad merely because they are in government service.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, in an order passed on August 27, set aside the June 10 government instructions to the extent that they imposed a complete ban on foreign travel by government employees until September 2026. The court described the restriction as “manifestly arbitrary” and “grossly disproportionate” to the objective cited by the state. It also directed the competent authority to permit a nursing officer employed at PGIMS, Rohtak, to travel to Australia for a professional examination.
“The factual matrix of the present case is illustrative of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut,” the court observed while questioning the justification offered for preventing the petitioner from travelling.
Nursing officer moved court after leave denied
The petitioner, Sheetal Rani, has been working as a nursing officer at PGIMS, Rohtak, since February 2021. She wanted to travel to Australia to pursue professional advancement and appear in the Objective Structured Clinical Examination conducted under the Australian health practitioner regulatory framework.
She had obtained approval in January to apply for an Australian visa and was granted a valid visa on May 29. Her course and examination, scheduled for September 29, were subsequently approved, following which she sought earned leave from September 3 to October 4.
Her leave request, however, was not entertained because of the Haryana Human Resource Department’s June 10 instructions. The directions barred government servants as well as employees of boards, corporations and other public authorities from travelling abroad for official or personal purposes until September, with an exception for travel required for medical treatment.
The nursing officer challenged the restriction, arguing that it indiscriminately applied to employees regardless of their destination, purpose of travel, duration of absence, designation or nature of duties.
State cited wars, fuel conservation and austerity
Defending the instructions, the Haryana government told the High Court that the restrictions had been introduced against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian crisis, which had affected global supply chains, particularly those involving fuel and essential resources.
The state maintained that the measure was temporary and formed part of an austerity drive aimed at conserving resources and reducing expenditure in the larger public interest.
The High Court, however, found no convincing connection between those objectives and a prohibition on an employee undertaking private foreign travel.
It specifically questioned how stopping a nursing officer from travelling to Australia to upgrade her professional qualifications could contribute to conserving fuel or other resources. The state, the court said, had failed to offer a plausible explanation.
Right to foreign travel protected under Article 21
The judgment placed the dispute within the framework of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court said the right to travel abroad could not be treated merely as an administrative privilege in a globalised world.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, Justice Brar noted that travelling abroad has been recognised as an integral component of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
The June 10 instructions, the court found, were executive directions and did not derive their authority from a legislative enactment. Even if the government possessed the power to regulate foreign travel by its employees, any restriction would still have to satisfy constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality.
The court found the Haryana policy deficient on all these grounds because it mechanically placed every government employee under the same restriction without providing a mechanism for considering individual circumstances.
No rational link between ban and stated objective
The High Court also applied the principle of proportionality, examining whether the restriction bore a reasonable relationship to the purpose the government claimed it was seeking to achieve.
It held that Haryana had failed to establish a rational nexus between concerns over international crises, fuel supplies and resource conservation on the one hand, and prohibiting privately funded foreign travel by government employees on the other.
The nursing officer’s case made that disconnect particularly evident, the court said. Preventing her from appearing for a professional examination not only interfered with her freedom to travel but also obstructed her attempt to obtain higher qualifications and improve her professional skills.
The court further linked her pursuit of higher education with constitutional protections surrounding life and personal liberty.
Setting aside the June 10 instructions insofar as they imposed a complete foreign travel ban, the High Court directed the competent authority to grant the petitioner permission to travel abroad. She has been required to return to service once her sanctioned leave expires.
The ruling does not prevent the Haryana government from regulating foreign travel by its employees altogether. It establishes, however, that such restrictions cannot operate as an indiscriminate prohibition and must be backed by a reasonable justification while allowing individual circumstances to be considered.