In a significant ruling on the constitutional limits of executive austerity measures, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Bench sets aside the Government Instructions/Guidelines dated June 10, 2026, to the extent they prohibit government servants from travelling abroad, holding that a blanket ban cannot override the fundamental right to travel and the right to pursue higher education under Article 21. The Court declared the said Haryana Government’s Instructions unconstitutional to the extent they imposed a complete ban on foreign travel by government employees.
Executive/administrative instructions, in the absence of a valid legislative or statutory foundation, cannot by themselves constitute the ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21. Any restriction affecting the personal liberty of government employees must satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, including the twin tests of reasonable classification (intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved), and must be fair, just, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and proportionate, added the Court.
The Court also asserted that a blanket prohibition on foreign travel by all government employees, irrespective of individual circumstances, destination, purpose of travel, duration of absence, or nature of duties, fails the tests of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness, and is manifestly arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved.
Also read ‘No Contractual Lien’: Bombay HC Directs Release of 138 Tank Containers Belonging to Russian Owner
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam [AIR 1967 SC 1836[, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India [2019 (2) SCT 741]. The Court noted that the impugned Instructions/Guidelines dated June 10, 2026 are purely executive in nature and do not derive their authority from any legislative enactment, and therefore cannot by themselves constitute the ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further observed that the impugned Instructions impose a blanket prohibition on foreign travel that is mechanically applied to all government employees without any scope of accommodation in consideration of individual circumstances, nature of duties, designation of the employee, or purpose of travel. The Court held that a blanket prohibition on an entire class of citizens merely because they are in government service is manifestly arbitrary, and 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 Court further observed that preventing a Nursing Officer from travelling to Australia for a professional examination not only tramples upon her right to travel abroad but also thwarts her from receiving higher education, which is a fundamental right traceable to Part III of the Constitution and linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as observed in Miss. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka [1992 INSC 186] and Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India [2009 (6) SCC 398]. The Court remarked that the approach adopted by the Government amounts to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which is impermissible in our constitutional jurisprudence.
Briefly, Sheetal Rani, a Nursing Officer working with PGIMS, Rohtak since Feb 23, 2021, sought to travel to Australia to appear in the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) conducted by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and National Boards, with the objective of gaining professional experience and obtaining a higher qualification. Her foreign visit was initially approved by respondent No.4 vide order dated Jan 15, 2026, granting her a No Objection Certificate to apply for a Visa. She deposited the prescribed fee on Feb 07, 2026, received confirmation of her registration on Aug 04, 2026, and was granted an Australian Visitor (Subclass 600) Visa on May 29, 2026, valid till May 29, 2031. Her application to attend the course and appear in the examination scheduled for May 29, 2026 was approved vide communication dated Aug 04, 2026.
Pursuant thereto, she submitted her application dated Aug 18, 2026 for Earned Leave from Sep 03, 2026 to Oct 04, 2026. However, respondent No.2 refused to entertain her application in view of the Government Instructions/Guidelines dated June 10, 2026, which prohibits Government servants and employees of Boards, Corporations and public authorities from traveling abroad, for official or personal reasons, up to September 2026, except if such travel is necessitated for medical reasons. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said Instructions and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant her Earned Leave.
