Punjab and Haryana High Court Ruling
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently nullified the Haryana government’s blanket ban on foreign travel for its employees, a measure initially imposed due to the fuel crisis linked to the West Asia conflict. This decision came in response to the case Sheetal Rani v State of Haryana and Others, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.
Justice Brar criticized the ban for being indiscriminately applied to all government employees, without accounting for individual circumstances or the purpose of travel. He declared, “A blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is manifestly arbitrary. The State has failed to demonstrate any rational nexus between the objective sought to be achieved by the impugned Instructions (Annexure P-7) i.e., addressing the impact of the global crisis on fuel and resources, and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel.”
The Case of the Nursing Officer
The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by a nursing officer who intended to travel to Australia for a professional examination. She contested the government’s June 10 guidelines that imposed a blanket restriction on foreign travel for employees. Initially, in January, the government had approved her travel by allowing her to apply for a visa to take the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards. However, her application for earned leave was denied this month due to the government’s directive that foreign travel for State employees was permissible only for medical reasons.
Judicial Observations
In the judgment delivered on August 27, the court emphasized that in today’s interconnected world, the right to travel abroad should not be curtailed as a mere administrative privilege. The court noted that the state’s instructions were purely executive and lacked legislative backing. It further stated that while the government possesses the authority to regulate employees’ foreign travel, any restrictions must adhere to the strict standards of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court opined that barring a nursing officer from traveling to Australia for a professional exam not only infringes on her right to travel but also impedes her pursuit of higher education. “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,” the court asserted.
More Read
Verdict and Legal Representation
The court concluded that the blanket travel restriction was grossly disproportionate to its intended purpose. Consequently, it annulled the government’s instructions imposing a blanket travel ban on employees and directed the competent authority to grant the petitioner leave for her travel.
Justice Brar remarked, “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 State was represented by Advocates Brijender Kaushik and Sandeep Kr Bhardwaj, while AAG Akshit Pathiana advocated for the State of Haryana. Advocate Aditya Gautam represented other respondents.
