The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right and denial of travel permission due to an ongoing investigation by the Department violates Article 21: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court confirmed that the lack of a departmental investigation cannot be the basis for refusing employees permission to travel abroad. Such a refusal to authorize was a violation of the fundamental right to personal freedom under Art. 21 of the Constitution, which could not be taken away otherwise than in accordance with the procedure provided for by law.

Bench with Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a person who had submitted an application to a government department seeking permission to travel to Singapore for a few days to meet his son.

The department against which the petitioner approached the Court did not act on this application for a long time. When the Tribunal issued notice to the department, two days before the case was listed, the department served a charge sheet on the petitioner, initiating a departmental inquiry.

The government department lawyer submitted that in light of the ongoing departmental investigation, the petitioner could not be allowed to travel abroad.

Rejecting this argument, the Court first held that the charge sheet was filed by the department merely to defeat the purpose of the writ petition. Second, even if the department wanted to conduct any departmental investigation, it had to act in accordance with the law.

The court referred to a 2010 Supreme Court case smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India in which the expression “personal freedom” contained in Art. 21 was interpreted as having a broader scope, including the right to travel abroad.

Moreover, in the case of Satish Chandra Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court stated that the excessive length of departmental proceedings cannot be the basis for a ban on traveling abroad. Determining the right to travel abroad as a basic human right, the following judgment was issued in the case:

“The right to travel abroad is an important fundamental human right because it enhances the independent and self-determined creative nature of the individual, not only by expanding his freedom of action, but also by broadening his range of experiences.”

The Court also referred to a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Ken v. Dulles (1958) in which it was recognized that the freedom to travel abroad has great social value and is a fundamental human right of great importance. And such a right to travel was part of a “freedom” that could not be taken away from citizens without due process of law.

In the light of this analysis, the Court opined that a balance must be struck between the petitioner’s right to go abroad and the department’s right to properly investigate the petitioner, the latter being able to impose appropriate conditions on the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the government department to grant the petitioner permission to travel to Singapore, imposing certain conditions.

Title: Neeraj Saxena v. Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Paradise) 324

Click here to read/download the order