A blanket executive ban on foreign travel for government employees is unconstitutional and arbitrary as it violates the fundamental right to travel abroad and the right to education under Article 21, lacking a rational nexus with the stated objective of resource conservation.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Instructions/Guidelines dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.1/State of Haryana, insofar as they impose a blanket restriction/prohibition upon foreign travel by government employees. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to grant Earned Leave to the petitioner from 03.09.2026 to 04.10.2026 for travelling to Australia, in terms of the approval dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) granted by respondent No.4.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined as a Nursing Officer with respondent No.3-PGIMS, Rohtak on 23.02.2021. With the objective of gaining professional experience and obtaining higher qualification, she applied for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards. Her foreign visit was initially approved by respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), granting her a No Objection Certificate to apply for a Visa. Subsequently, she deposited the prescribed fee on 07.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), received confirmation of her registration on 04.08.2026 (Annexure P-3), and was granted an Australian Visitor (Subclass 600) Visa on 29.05.2026, valid from 29.05.2026 to 29.05.2031, as is evident from Annexure P-4. Her application to attend the course and appear in the examination scheduled for 29.09.2026 was approved vide communication dated 04.08.2026. Pursuant thereto, she submitted her application dated 18.08.2026 for Earned Leave (Annexures P-5 and P-6). However, respondent No.2 refused to entertain her application in view of the Government Instructions/Guidelines dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) which prohibits Government servants and employees of Boards, Corporations and public authorities from traveling abroad, for official or personal reasons, up to September, 2026, except if such travel is necessitated for medical reasons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argues that the impugned Government Instructions (Annexure P-7) are unconstitutional, arbitrary and disproportionate. It is submitted that the right to travel abroad is a recognized facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam , AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , (1978) 1 SCC 248. It is further contended that this right cannot be curtailed except by a procedure established by law which is fair, just and reasonable. The impugned Instructions (Annexure P-7) are merely executive/administrative in nature, and thus, cannot by themselves constitute the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the absence of a valid legislative or statutory foundation authorizing such blanket deprivation of a fundamental right.

4. It is further submitted that the impugned Instructions (Annexure P-7) fail the tests of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, as they indiscriminately apply to all government employees, irrespective of their individual circumstances, destination, purpose of travel, duration of absence or nature of duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that although the State may, in an appropriate case and in accordance with law, regulate the foreign travel by its employees, such regulation cannot take the form of an indiscriminate and blanket prohibition having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, any restriction affecting the petitioner's personal liberty must sati