Back
Rules on Foreign Travel by Government Staff Unconstitutional
In a significant ruling that reaffirms the constitutional limits on executive power, the has struck down the 's on foreign travel by its employees. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the blanket prohibition imposed through a executive instruction was , , and under .
The judgment came on a petition filed by Sheetal Rani, a nursing officer at , who had been denied earned leave to travel to Australia for a professional examination. The court not only quashed the restriction but also directed the authorities to grant her permission for the trip.
A Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut
"The factual matrix of the present case is illustrative of a
, which is impermissible in our constitutional jurisprudence,"
Justice Brar observed while setting aside the restrictions as
"
to its alleged objective."
The case originated when Sheetal Rani, who joined PGIMS Rohtak in , sought to appear for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by Australian healthcare regulatory bodies. She had obtained a No Objection Certificate in , an Australian visa in , and confirmation of examination registration in . When she applied for earned leave from , the authorities refused citing the June 10 instructions that prohibited government employees from foreign travel, official or personal, until , except for medical emergencies.
Right to Travel: Not a Mere
The court firmly rejected the state's argument that foreign travel was an
that could be curtailed through
.
"In today's globalised world, the
cannot be restricted as a matter of mere
,"
Justice Brar wrote, invoking the
's landmark decisions in
and
, which established that the
is an integral part of the
under
.
The judgment underscored that any restriction on this right must satisfy the rigorous standards of . Since the impugned instructions were purely executive in nature and did not derive authority from any legislative enactment, they could not constitute " " under .
No with Fuel Conservation
The defended the ban as a temporary austerity measure necessitated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian crisis, which had impacted global fuel supplies and essential resources. However, the court found no rational connection between these objectives and the complete prohibition on private foreign travel.
"The State has failed to demonstrate any
between the objective sought to be achieved by the impugned Instructions... and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel,"
the court observed. It further noted that it remained
"unclear as to how denial of foreign travel to a nursing officer seeking to upskill would assist in the larger aim of fuel conservation."
The court also highlighted that the ban was
"mechanically applied to all government employees"
without any scope for individual consideration based on designation, nature of duties, purpose of travel, or duration of absence.
Education and Personal Liberty Intertwined
Justice Brar went on to link the petitioner's right to travel with her
, calling both fundamental rights traceable to
.
"Preventing a nursing officer from travelling to Australia for a professional examination does not only trample upon her
but is also thwarting her from receiving higher education,"
he stated, citing
and
to underscore that the
flows directly from the right to life.
The Verdict
The court disposed of the petition by quashing the impugned instructions
"to the extent that it imposes a complete ban on government employees to travel abroad."
It directed the competent authority to pass appropriate orders on or before
, granting Sheetal Rani permission to travel, with the condition that she rejoin service after the sanctioned leave period.
The ruling serves as a powerful reminder that administrative convenience alone cannot justify sweeping restrictions on fundamental rights, and that even well-intentioned austerity measures must be proportionate and constitutionally sound.
