SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Rehana Begum, D/o (Late) N.M.D. Mustafa – Appellant 
Versus
The Chief Information Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Commission, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – Respondent 
Writ Petition No: 20597 of 2025
Decided on : 14-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri S.V.Maruthi Sankar, Sri T. Balaswami
For the Respondent: Sri P. Ravikanth

The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right that cannot be infringed without lawful justification, and administrative exigencies do not supersede this right.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, and 21 - Writ Petition seeking Mandamus for leave to attend an International Visitor Leadership Program rejected as illegal and arbitrary - The rejection cited potential administrative exigencies due to staffing shortages - Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right and cannot be infringed without lawful justification - Administrative reasons cannot override fundamental rights, as established by Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 2, 19, 20)

(B) Right to travel - Recognized as a basic human right essential for personal freedom and self-determination, including cultural and professional opportunities - Relevant cases include Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India. (Paras 13, 18)

Facts of the case:
The Writ Petitioner, a State Information Commissioner, applied for leave to attend a prestigious International Visitor Leadership Programme in the USA. Her application was rejected due to claims of work-related exigencies despite her securing a visa and tickets for travel.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the reasons for denial were arbitrary, not adhering to legal standards, and represented an infringement on the Petitioner’s fundamental rights.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the reasons for denying leave were valid or arbitrary, infringing upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that without substantive justification, the right to travel abroad cannot be denied; administrative constraints cannot supersede individual rights. The Writ Petition succeeded.

Result: Impugned order set aside; leave granted to attend the program.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's plea for leave (Para 2)
2. petitioner’s qualifications and application process (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. reason for leave denial related to workload (Para 6 , 9)
4. counter-arguments presented by respondents (Para 10 , 11)
5. right to travel as a fundamental freedom (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. supreme court's stance on travel rights (Para 17 , 18)
7. invalidity of denial reasons against travel rights (Para 19)
8. court’s directive and conclusion (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
-

ORDER :

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

1. Heard Sri S.V. Maruthi Sankar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Balaswami, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Ravikanth, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Government Administration.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :

‘‘It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate order, more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 bearing R.C.NO. 19180/APIC/Estt./2025 dated 24.07.2025 whereby the application of the Petitioner seeking leave for the purpose of attending an International Visitor Leadership Program in U.S.A was rejected as being illegal, arbitrary, violative to principles of naturaljustice and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently, direct the Respondents to grant the sanctioned leave to the Petitioner to attend the said program for the period 25.08.2025 to 13.09.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

3. The Writ Petitioner is working as State Information Commissioner. She had applied for availing Casual Leave for attending a programme in the United States of America. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner is originally a Seasoned Media Professional with over two decades of experience on frontline journalism across the Country and abroad including coverage of conflict zones, political and humanitarian disasters. She has been invited to a prestigious International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP), sponsored by United States Department of State in recognition of her distinguished professional background.

4. It is stated in Para-4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition regards the benefits that the Writ Petitioner would have by attending the as International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP). The Writ Petitioner has also served as Senior Electron'"' Media Journalist and covered national and international events such as 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Pulwama incident, Kargil conflict and Turkey Earthquake etc.,, The Writ Petitioner has also interviewed several noted Leaders in India.

5. An invite was received by the Writ Petitioner with regard to International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) in the month of February, 2025 for the to be conducted from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025. The Writ programme Petitioner made a request to this effect on 25.02.2025. On 24.02.2025, the General Administrative Department, vide G.O.Rt.No.394 dated 24.02.2025, has accorded permission to the Writ Petitioner for the foreign visit to U.S.A for participation from 10.03.2025 to 28.02.2025. However, the Official Respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the Writ Petitioner by passing a Speaking Order on 04.03.2025. On 04.07.2025, the Writ Petitioner has once again made a Representation for sanction of Earned Leave from 22.08.2025 to 15.09.2025. The Writ Petitioner has also submitted several reminders to the Respondent No.1 on 10.07.2025, 14.07.2025, 18.07.2025. Due to inaction on the part of the Respondent No.1, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.19267 of 2025. While the said Writ Petition was pending challenging the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 had passed Order on 24.07.2025. For this reason, the said W.P.No. 19267 of 2025 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the Respondent No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top