The Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned Haryana government instructions that imposed a broad restriction on foreign travel by government employees, ruling that such a sweeping ban could not be applied without considering individual circumstances.
The restriction had been defended by the State against the backdrop of global crises, including the Russia-Ukraine war and instability in West Asia, which had contributed to concerns over fuel and resource pressures.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the policy cast too wide a net by treating all government employees alike, regardless of why they intended to travel abroad.
The case arose from a petition filed by a nursing officer who sought permission to visit Australia to take a professional examination. Her request for leave was rejected after the State issued instructions allowing foreign travel by employees only on medical grounds.
Earlier, the government had permitted her to apply for a visa so she could appear for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination conducted for healthcare professionals in Australia.
The Court noted that the subsequent refusal effectively blocked her from pursuing a professional opportunity overseas.
According to the judgment, the right to travel abroad cannot be reduced to a discretionary administrative concession, particularly in an increasingly interconnected world. The Court also pointed out that the government instructions were executive directions and did not have statutory backing.
Even where the government is entitled to regulate foreign travel by its employees, any restriction must meet constitutional standards, including those relating to equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.
The Court further observed that stopping the petitioner from travelling to Australia for a professional examination affected more than her ability to leave the country. It also interfered with her pursuit of further education and professional advancement.
The restriction, the Court concluded, was far more extensive than necessary to achieve the government’s stated objective.
The High Court consequently struck down the instructions insofar as they created a blanket prohibition on foreign travel by Haryana government employees. It also directed the competent authority to grant the petitioner the necessary leave for her proposed trip abroad.
The ruling makes clear that a government-wide restriction cannot automatically override individual rights simply because a person happens to be in public service.
