Facts
The petitioner, a Nursing Officer employed with PGIMS, Rohtak since 23 February 2021, sought to travel to Australia to attend a course and appear in the Objective Structured Clinical Examination conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Her foreign travel was initially approved through a No Objection Certificate dated 15 January 2026, and she subsequently obtained the necessary registration and Australian visitor visa.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Her application to attend the course and examination scheduled for 29 September 2026 was approved on 4 August 2026, after which she applied for Earned Leave from 3 September to 4 October 2026.
Source reference: p. 2The competent authority declined to entertain her leave application by relying on Government Instructions dated 10 June 2026, which prohibited official and personal foreign travel by Government employees and employees of public authorities up to September 2026, except for medical treatment.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, 7The petitioner challenged the Instructions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and sought permission to undertake the foreign travel.
Source reference: p. 1Issues
Whether the Government Instructions dated 10 June 2026, insofar as they imposed a blanket prohibition on foreign travel by Government employees, violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
Source reference: para. 7; pp. 4–5Whether the petitioner was entitled to appropriate permission to travel to Australia for professional training and examination despite the impugned Instructions?
Source reference: paras. 2–4, 13; pp. 2–4, 13Law Applied
The Court applied Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to travel abroad forms part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and may be restricted only through a procedure that is fair, just, reasonable and non-arbitrary, as recognised in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Source reference: para. 8; p. 5It also relied on Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 (2) SCT 741, which described foreign travel as an important basic human right.
Source reference: para. 8; pp. 5–6Under Article 14, executive action must be based on reasonable classification, bear a rational nexus to its objective, and remain free from arbitrariness, as explained in State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar, 2026 INSC 352, State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2025) 1 SCC 1, and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
Source reference: para. 11; pp. 10–12The Court further relied on Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 INSC 186, and Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, 2009 (6) SCC 398, for the principle that the right to education is connected with the right to life and constitutes an inalienable human right.
Source reference: paras. 12.1–12.2; pp. 13–15Reasoning
The Court found that the Instructions were purely executive in character and imposed an absolute prohibition on foreign travel by the entire class of Government employees, without considering the employee’s individual circumstances, designation, purpose of travel, destination, or duration of absence.
Source reference: paras. 9–11; pp. 6–12Although the State relied on the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the West Asian crisis, fuel conservation and austerity, the Court found no rational nexus between those objectives and prohibiting private foreign travel, particularly travel undertaken for professional education or examination.
Source reference: paras. 5, 10–12; pp. 4, 10–13Applying the requirements of fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality under Articles 14 and 21, the Court held that the blanket restriction was manifestly arbitrary and grossly disproportionate.
Source reference: paras. 12–12.2; pp. 12–15In the petitioner’s case, preventing her from travelling to Australia for professional upskilling additionally impeded her educational and professional advancement, without advancing the stated objective of conserving fuel or resources.
Source reference: paras. 12–12.2; pp. 12–15Holding
The Court set aside the Government Instructions dated 10 June 2026 to the extent that they imposed a complete ban on foreign travel by Government employees.
It directed respondent No. 4, being the competent authority, to pass appropriate orders by 31 August 2026 granting the petitioner permission to travel abroad.
Source reference: para. 13(ii); p. 15The petitioner was directed to rejoin service after expiry of the sanctioned leave period.
Source reference: para. 13(ii); p. 15The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending miscellaneous applications.
Source reference: paras. 13–14; p. 15Original Court PDF
Sheetal RanivsState Of Haryana And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
