Right to Travel Abroad is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21; Pending Inquiry Cannot Justify Restriction: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court, presided by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, allowed petitioner Neeraj Saxena to travel abroad for personal reasons, despite a pending departmental inquiry against him. Saxena, an employee of Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd., sought the court's intervention to visit his son in Singapore, which the court granted, reinforcing that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Neeraj Saxena approached the Rajasthan High Court after Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. denied his request to travel abroad, citing an ongoing departmental inquiry. Saxena argued that his right to travel is an essential part of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. His application to travel to Singapore from October 30 to November 4, 2024, to visit his son had gone unanswered by the department, prompting him to file this writ petition.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the right to travel abroad is a component of the broader concept of "personal liberty" as guaranteed by Article 21. The court observed, “The pendency of departmental proceedings cannot curtail the fundamental right of a person to travel abroad unless explicitly restricted by law.” Relying on precedent cases, the court held that administrative actions must not infringe upon fundamental rights without due legal process.
The court cited landmark judgments in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India to substantiate the petitioner’s claim to travel freely. In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court had extended the scope of Article 21, interpreting "personal liberty" to include the right to travel abroad, subject to lawful restrictions. Similarly, in Satish Chandra Verma, the Supreme Court ruled that ongoing departmental proceedings cannot prevent an individual from exercising this right.
Justice Dhand emphasized, “The right to travel is a basic human right that supports an individual’s independent and self-determined character. Family bonds and personal relationships are essential aspects of life that cannot be arbitrarily restricted by administrative proceedings.”
Balancing Personal Liberty with Departmental Interests: Conditions Imposed for Travel
While recognizing Saxena’s fundamental right to travel, the court acknowledged the department's interest in proceeding with the inquiry. To balance both interests, the court granted permission for Saxena’s travel to Singapore, subject to specific conditions to ensure his return and participation in the ongoing departmental proceedings.
Undertaking to Return: Saxena was required to submit an undertaking confirming his return to India by November 6, 2024, both to the court and to his department.
Compliance with Departmental Inquiry: Upon his return, Saxena must resume participation in the departmental inquiry.
Travel Restriction: Saxena was only permitted to travel to Singapore and was barred from visiting any other country.
The court made it clear that any failure to adhere to these conditions would permit the department to initiate legal action against him.
The court noted with disapproval that the department served a charge-sheet on Saxena on October 21, 2024, only after he filed his writ petition, suggesting an attempt to obstruct his travel. Justice Dhand observed, “The respondent's action of issuing the charge-sheet appears to be a reactionary measure post-petition and reflects poorly on procedural fairness.” The court reiterated that departmental proceedings should not be used as a pretext to infringe upon fundamental rights.
The Rajasthan High Court ultimately allowed Saxena’s petition, setting aside the department’s objections and directing it to permit his travel to Singapore from October 30 to November 4, 2024. The court ordered that Saxena's right to personal liberty must be upheld, subject to compliance with the specified conditions. The court further clarified that the department retained the right to proceed with the inquiry upon his return, ensuring that the departmental process remains unaffected.
Date of Decision: October 23, 2024