Government Cannot Restrict Employees’ Right to Travel Abroad Through Executive Instructions; Blanket Ban on Foreign Travel Manifestly Arbitrary: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Sheetal Rani v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 27 August 2026
Citation: CWP-27369-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Haryana Government’s instructions imposing a complete prohibition on foreign travel by government employees were manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The right to travel abroad forms an integral part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed merely through executive instructions unsupported by any legislative or statutory authority. Even where the State is competent to regulate foreign travel by its employees, the restriction must be fair, reasonable, proportionate and rationally connected with the object sought to be achieved. The Court found no rational nexus between conserving fuel and resources and prohibiting a government employee from undertaking private foreign travel at her own expense for a professional examination.
Summary: The petitioner, a Nursing Officer at PGIMS, Rohtak, intended to travel to Australia to appear in the Objective Structured Clinical Examination conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards. Her proposed foreign visit had initially been approved, pursuant to which she paid the prescribed examination fee, obtained registration confirmation and secured an Australian visa. However, her subsequent application for earned leave from 3 September 2026 to 4 October 2026 was not entertained because of Haryana Government instructions dated 10 June 2026. These instructions prohibited all official and personal foreign travel by government servants and employees of public bodies until September 2026, except travel required for medical treatment.
The State defended the restriction as a temporary austerity measure introduced in view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the West Asian crisis and their effect on global fuel supplies and other essential resources. The Court rejected this justification and observed that the instructions imposed a mechanical and indiscriminate prohibition without considering the employee’s designation, nature of duties, purpose of travel, destination, duration of absence or individual circumstances.
Relying upon Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an important human right protected as part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. Any restriction upon that right must be supported by law and must satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality. The Court further observed that preventing a nursing professional from travelling abroad for a qualifying examination also obstructed her pursuit of higher education and professional advancement.
Describing the restriction as illustrative of “a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut,” the Court concluded that a blanket ban on an entire class of persons merely because they were government employees was grossly disproportionate. The State failed to explain how preventing the petitioner’s private travel to Australia would contribute to fuel conservation or alleviate pressure on public resources.
Decision: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the Haryana Government instructions dated 10 June 2026 to the extent that they imposed a complete ban on foreign travel by government employees. The competent authority was directed to pass appropriate orders granting the petitioner permission to travel abroad on or before 31 August 2026. The petitioner was required to rejoin service upon expiry of the sanctioned leave period.