Signing you in

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was hearing the plea of a nursing officer who wanted to travel to Australia to appear for a professional examination after she was unable to get her leave application processed because of the government’s foreign-travel restrictions. The court also questioned how stopping a nursing officer from travelling abroad for professional upskilling could help the government achieve its goal of conserving fuel.

“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, i.e., addressing the impact of the global crisis on fuel and resources, and the complete prohibition imposed on private foreign travel,” the August 27 order read.

The high court noted that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and said it cannot be treated merely as an “administrative privilege”.

It further observed that preventing the nursing officer from travelling to Australia for her professional examination not only affected her right to travel abroad but also came in the way of her pursuing higher education and professional advancement. “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 added.

The woman claimed that she joined as a nursing officer with Pt Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences in February 2021. She added that for gaining professional experience and obtaining higher qualifications, she applied for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards.

She pointed out that her foreign visit was initially approved by the authorities’ order dated January 15, granting her a no-objection certificate to apply for a visa. Subsequently, she got the Australian Visitor Visa to attend the course and appear in the examination scheduled for September 29.

She accordingly submitted her leave application on August 18 with the authorities. However, the authorities refused to entertain it by relying on the Haryana government’s June 10 guidelines, which prohibited government servants and employees of boards, corporations and public authorities from travelling abroad for either official or personal purposes until September 2026, except for medical treatment.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Brijender Kaushik argued that the said government guidelines are unconstitutional, arbitrary and disproportionate, and 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. It was further argued that this right cannot be curtailed except by a procedure established by law which is fair, just and reasonable.

Kaushik pointed out that the said instructions are merely executive/administrative in nature, and thus, cannot by themselves constitute the ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, additional advocate general Akshit Pathania submitted that the said instructions 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.

He further submitted that the government instructions were issued as an austerity measure in the larger public interest to conserve resources and reduce expenditure. It was also 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 high court noted that the June 10 instructions issued by Haryana’s Human Resource Department completely prohibited government employees from travelling abroad, except for medical treatment.

The court found that the restriction had been mechanically applied across the entire category of government employees, without considering individual circumstances, the nature of an employee’s duties, their designation or the purpose of the proposed foreign travel.

“At the outset, it must be observed that the impugned Instructions are purely executive in nature. They do not derive their authority from any legislative enactment,” it added.

The court also mentioned that even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that 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.

Accordingly, the court set aside the said instructions of June 10 to the extent that it imposes a complete ban on government employees from travelling abroad and directed the said authority to pass appropriate orders granting permission to the woman to travel abroad for her examination.