The Punjab and Haryana High Court has invalidated an executive directive by the Haryana government that barred state employees from traveling abroad, ruling that an indiscriminate prohibition on public servants is unconstitutional and arbitrary.
In a decision delivered on August 27, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed state authorities to grant permission to a government nursing officer seeking to travel to Australia for a professional examination. The court held that the right to travel abroad is an integral component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that administrative policies cannot restrict basic freedoms without proportional justification.
Court Rejects State Austerity Argument
The dispute originated from instructions issued on June 10 by the Haryana Human Resource Department, which prohibited staff across all state departments, boards, corporations, and public authorities from undertaking foreign travel for personal or official purposes until September. The only exemption permitted under the order was for medical emergencies.
Defending the ban, state counsel argued that the temporary restriction was an austerity measure enacted in the public interest to conserve fuel and resources amid global supply chain disruptions linked to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and instability in West Asia.
The High Court dismissed this argument, observing that the state failed to establish any rational link between mitigating global fuel pressures and imposing a total embargo on personal overseas travel. The bench described the blanket ban as disproportionate to its stated objective, noting that the policy was enforced mechanically across all personnel without consideration for individual circumstances, rank, job responsibilities, or travel destinations.
Relief Granted To Rohtak Nursing Officer
The ruling came on a petition filed by a nursing officer stationed at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS) in Rohtak, where she has worked since February 2021.
The petitioner secured departmental clearance in January to apply for an Australian visa, which was granted on May 29. She sought to travel to Australia to complete the Objective Structured Clinical Examination, administered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards, to advance her professional qualifications.
However, when she submitted an application for earned leave on August 18, hospital authorities refused to entertain the request, citing the June 10 travel restrictions.
Executive Order Failed Constitutional Standards
Justice Brar pointed out that preventing the petitioner from sitting for her licensing examination not only violated her right to travel abroad but also directly obstructed her right to pursue higher education, which is also safeguarded under Article 21.
The court further noted that the travel ban was a purely executive instruction lacking legislative backing. The bench held that even when the state possesses regulatory authority over its employees, such restrictions must meet the standards of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
