Back
Blanket Foreign Travel Ban on Govt Employees Violates :
In a decisive ruling, the has struck down a directive imposing a on foreign travel for all state employees, holding it arbitrarily violative of . Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over a single-judge bench, quashed the travel prohibition as it failed to satisfy the constitutional standards of reasonableness and under .
The judgment came on a filed by Sheetal Rani, a Nursing Officer at , who was denied permission to travel to Australia for a professional licensing examination. The court not only invalidated the blanket restriction but also directed the to grant her earned leave for the purpose.
A Nursing Officer's Quest for Higher Education
The petitioner had joined PGIMS in and sought to enhance her professional qualifications by appearing for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination conducted by the . After obtaining a from her department in , she secured an Australian visa valid until . However, when she applied for earned leave in to attend the examination scheduled for , her application was refused by hospital authorities citing the impugned government instruction.
State's Austerity Argument Fails the Test
The defended its instruction as a temporary necessitated by the global fuel and resource crisis arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian situation. The directive placed a complete ban on foreign travel—official or personal—for all government employees until , with the sole exception of medical emergencies.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the prohibition was purely executive in nature, lacked any legislative backing, and constituted an arbitrary deprivation of her fundamental . Reliance was placed on the landmark decisions in and , where the held that the is an integral facet of under .
‘Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut’
The court found no between the stated objective of fuel conservation and the sweeping ban on personal foreign travel. “The State has failed to demonstrate any between the objective sought to be achieved… and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel,” Justice Brar observed. The bench noted that the instruction was mechanically applied without any scope for considering individual circumstances, purpose of travel, or the nature of duties.
Applying the for under Article 14, as reiterated by the in , the court held that the was . “A blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is ,” the judgment stated. The court further remarked that the action was “grossly disproportionate to its alleged objective” and likened it to “a .”
The court also highlighted that preventing the petitioner from traveling for her examination not only infringed her right to travel but also obstructed her right to education—a fundamental right traceable to , as recognized in and .
Court's Decision and Directions
The High Court set aside the impugned instructions to the extent they imposed a complete ban on foreign travel by government employees. It directed respondent No.4—the —to pass appropriate orders granting the petitioner permission to travel abroad, on or before . The court further mandated that the petitioner rejoin service after the expiry of the sanctioned leave period.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that even temporary administrative measures must pass and cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over under the guise of public interest.
