Sledgehammer used to crack a nut: HC quashes blanket ban on foreign travel by govt employees in Haryana

 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana government's June 10 ban on foreign travel by its employees till September this year, observing that a blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is manifestly arbitrary.

"The factual matrix of the present case is illustrative of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut, which is impermissible in our constitutional jurisprudence," the High Court said, setting aside the restrictions imposed by the state government that were "grossly disproportionate to its alleged objective".

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, in his order on August 27, directed Haryana authorities to grant permission to the petitioner, a nursing officer, to travel to Australia for a professional exam, stressing that the Supreme Court has held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

She had been denied permission citing the June 10 directive, which the state counsel argued was temporary and issued in public interest as an austerity measure due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian crisis.

The counsel for the petitioner had contended that she joined as a nursing officer with PGIMS hospital in Rohtak on February 23, 2021, and obtained approval in January this year to apply for an Australian visa. She deposited the prescribed fee and was on May 29 granted a valid visa.

With the objective of gaining professional experience and obtaining higher qualification, she had applied for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards, her counsel submitted before the court.

Later, when she submitted her application dated August 18 for earned leave, it was not entertained by authorities in view of the government instructions/guidelines dated June 10, 2026, which prohibit government servants and employees of Boards, Corporations and public authorities from travelling abroad, for official or personal reasons, up to September 2026, except if such travel is necessitated for medical reasons.

The petitioner's counsel vehemently argued that the impugned government instructions are unconstitutional, arbitrary and disproportionate. It was submitted that the right to travel abroad is a recognised facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It was further submitted that the impugned instructions 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.

On the other hand, the State Counsel submitted that they were issued in view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian crisis, which have created a serious impact on the global supply chain, particularly in relation to fuel and other essential resources.

The State Counsel further submitted that the instructions were issued as an austerity measure in the larger public interest to conserve resources and reduce expenditure.

It was argued that the restrictions are temporary in nature and the government is entitled to take such measures in the larger public interest, especially in the current global context.

The court observed that the primary question that arises for its consideration is whether the instructions/guidelines, insofar as they impose a blanket prohibition on foreign travel by government employees, are constitutionally valid.

"In today's globalised world, the right to travel abroad cannot be restricted as a matter of mere administrative privilege. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has authoritatively held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the court observed.

In the present case, the impugned Instructions/Guidelines dated June 10, issued by the Human Resource Department, Government of Haryana, impose a complete ban on foreign travel upon its employees.

"A perusal of the impugned Instructions makes it evident that a blanket prohibition with respect to foreign travel has been mechanically applied to all government employees," the court observed.

"Furthermore, the said Instructions do not provide any scope of accommodation in consideration of individual circumstances, nature of duties, designation of the employee or purpose of travel," the judge observed.

The court observed that the government instructions are purely executive in nature.

"They do not derive their authority from any legislative enactment. Further still, even assuming, for the sake of argument, the government has the power to regulate foreign travel of its employees, the restriction imposed must satisfy the rigorous standards of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e. the procedure adopted to accomplish the said goal must be fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and proportionate," it said.

Holding that blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is manifestly arbitrary, the court further observed that the State has failed to demonstrate any rational nexus between the objective sought to be achieved by the impugned instructions, that is addressing the impact of the global crisis on fuel and resources, and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel.

Further still, preventing a nursing officer from travelling to Australia for a professional examination not only tramples upon her right to travel abroad but is also thwarting her from receiving higher education, it observed.

The right to education is a fundamental right traceable to Part III of the Constitution of India and as such, linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Additionally, it is unclear as to how denial of foreign travel to a nursing officer seeking to upskill would assist in the larger aim of fuel conservation. No plausible explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the respondents in this regard, it observed.

"As such, this court cannot validate the approach adopted by the Government in imposing a blanket restriction by means of the impugned Instructions, the same being grossly disproportionate to its alleged objective," it said.

NATIONAL CHANDIGARH