Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right, Denying Permission To Travel Due To Pending Dept Enquiry Violates Article 21: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the pendency of departmental enquiry could not be a ground to deny permission to employees to travel abroad. Such rejection of permission amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution which could not be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by an individual who had filed an application with the government department seeking permission to travel to Singapore for a few days to meet his son.

This application was not acted upon by the department for a long time against which the petitioner approached the Court. When the Court issued notice to the department, two days before the case was listed, the department served a charge sheet upon the petitioner initiating a departmental enquiry.

It was the case of the counsel for the government-department that in light of the pending departmental enquiry, 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 only to defeat the purpose of the writ petition. Secondly, even if the department wanted to conduct any departmental enquiry, the department had to act in accordance with law.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India in which the expression “personal liberty” under Article 21 was interpreted as having a wider amplitude of including the right to go abroad.

Furthermore, in the case of Satish Chandra Sharma v Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court held that the pendency of a departmental proceeding could not be a ground to prevent a person from travelling abroad. While terming the right to travel abroad as a basic human the following ruling was given in the case,

“The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience.”

The Court also made a reference to a case decided by the Supreme Court of United States of America, Ken v Dulles (1958), in which it was held that freedom to go abroad had much social value and represented the basis human right of great significance. And such right to travel was part of “liberty” which could not be taken away from citizens without due process of law.

In light of this analysis, the Court opined that a balance had to be drawn between the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and right of the department to duly proceed with enquiry against the petitioner, and for the latter, appropriate conditions could be imposed on the petitioner.

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

Title: Neeraj Saxena v Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Click Here To Read/Download Order