High Court gives relief to Haryana employees, strikes down foreign travel ban

In a significant ruling on employee rights and administrative powers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana government's ban on foreign travel by state employees, holding that a blanket restriction imposed on an entire category of citizens merely because they are government servants cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The court set aside the Haryana government's June 10, 2026 instructions that prohibited government employees, as well as staff of boards, corporations and public authorities, from travelling abroad for official or personal reasons until September 2026, except in cases involving medical necessity.

Delivering the judgment on August 27, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar described the government's approach as a disproportionate response to its stated objectives.

"The factual matrix of the present case is illustrative of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut," the court observed while invalidating the restrictions.

Challenge arose from nursing officer's travel request

The case was brought by a nursing officer employed at PGIMS Rohtak, who sought permission to travel to Australia to appear for a professional examination.

According to submissions before the court, the petitioner:

• Joined PGIMS Rohtak as a nursing officer on February 23, 2021
• Obtained approval in January 2026 to apply for an Australian visa
• Received a valid visa on May 29, 2026
• Applied to appear for the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
• Intended to gain professional experience and higher qualifications through the examination process

Her request for earned leave, submitted on August 18, was not processed because of the Haryana government's June 10 directive restricting foreign travel.

The petitioner challenged the instructions, contending that they were unconstitutional, arbitrary and disproportionate.

Court examines constitutional validity of restrictions

The judgment centred on a key legal question: whether the state government could impose a blanket ban on foreign travel for all government employees through executive instructions.

Justice Brar noted that the right to travel abroad has repeatedly been recognised by the Supreme Court of India as part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court observed that in a globalised world, foreign travel cannot be treated merely as an administrative privilege granted or denied at the discretion of authorities.

According to the judgment, the June 10 instructions imposed a complete prohibition without considering individual circumstances.

The court noted several shortcomings in the government's approach:

• No distinction based on designation or role
• No consideration of the purpose of travel
• No assessment of duration of absence
• No accommodation for individual circumstances
• No mechanism for case-by-case evaluation

"A perusal of the impugned Instructions makes it evident that a blanket prohibition with respect to foreign travel has been mechanically applied to all Government employees," the court observed.

State defended order as an austerity measure

The Haryana government defended the restrictions by citing global economic pressures arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the West Asian crisis.

According to the state counsel, the developments had disrupted global supply chains and affected fuel and other essential resources.

The government maintained that the instructions were:

• Temporary in nature
• Issued in public interest
• Intended as an austerity measure
• Designed to conserve resources and reduce expenditure

The state further submitted that governments are entitled to adopt such measures when larger public interests are involved.

Court finds no rational connection between objective and restriction

The High Court was unconvinced by the state's justification.

Justice Brar observed that the government had failed to establish a rational connection between its stated objective of conserving resources and the blanket prohibition on foreign travel by employees.

The judgment stressed that even if the government possesses authority to regulate overseas travel by its employees, any such restriction must satisfy constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness, proportionality and non-arbitrariness.

The court also noted that the instructions were executive orders and did not derive authority from any legislative enactment.

Importantly, the judgment found no convincing explanation as to how preventing a nursing officer from travelling overseas for professional development would contribute to fuel conservation or resource management.

The court held that the restriction was especially problematic because it affected both the petitioner's right to travel abroad and her efforts to pursue higher professional qualifications.

Education and mobility rights come into focus

Beyond the travel issue, the judgment also touched upon educational advancement.

The court observed that preventing the petitioner from appearing for a professional examination abroad would impede her pursuit of higher education and professional growth.

Justice Brar noted that the right to education is linked to the broader guarantees of life and personal liberty under the Constitution.

The ruling stated that denying an opportunity for upskilling and professional development without adequate justification could not be sustained under constitutional principles.

Wider implications for government employees

The judgment is likely to have implications beyond the individual petitioner.

By declaring the June 10 instructions unconstitutional, the High Court has reinforced the principle that administrative convenience alone cannot justify broad restrictions on fundamental rights.

The ruling also underscores the judiciary's emphasis on proportionality in government decision-making, particularly when executive actions affect personal liberties.

The court ultimately directed Haryana authorities to grant permission to the petitioner to travel to Australia for her examination.

As governments increasingly respond to economic and geopolitical challenges through administrative measures, the judgment serves as a reminder that such actions remain subject to constitutional safeguards. For public employees across Haryana, the decision restores the ability to seek overseas travel without being subjected to a blanket prohibition based solely on their employment status.