Right to Travel Abroad : Refusal on the ground of pendency of criminal cases infringes the fundamental right

Orissa High Court Upholds Right to Travel Abroad, Quashes Government's Refusal to Issue NOC. Court rules that pending disciplinary proceedings cannot impede a government employee's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

In a landmark judgment, the Orissa High Court has reinforced the constitutional right of government employees to travel abroad, ruling that pending disciplinary proceedings should not obstruct the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The court, presided over by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, quashed the orders refusing the NOC to Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera, a government doctor, allowing him to visit his daughter in Singapore.

Dr. Behera's application for a passport was initially denied due to his unauthorized absence and ongoing disciplinary proceedings. However, the court found that the government's refusal to issue a NOC based on these grounds constituted an infringement on his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment emphasized that mere allegations or proceedings cannot be equated with proven guilt and should not impede the fundamental rights of individuals.

Justice Mishra stated, "The refusal to issue NOC on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings/criminal cases indirectly infringes the fundamental right to liberty." The court's decision aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case, which broadened the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 to include the right to travel abroad.

The judgment also criticized the state's reliance on an executive circular from 2014, arguing that it cannot substitute for enacted law. The court highlighted that the Passport Act, 1967, does not place an absolute bar on travel for individuals with pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings. It further noted that executive instructions should not indirectly curtail fundamental rights.

In its directive, the court ordered the issuance of the NOC within six weeks, thereby facilitating Dr. Behera's passport application process. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for government employees facing similar administrative hurdles and reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional freedoms against administrative overreach.

Bottom Line:

The refusal to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings/criminal cases against a government employee indirectly infringes the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Article 21, Passports Act, 1967 Sections 10(3) and 6(2)(f)

Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806948