The right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While restrictions can be imposed as per law, the State’s authority to limit international travel of its employees on administrative grounds—particularly in the context of pending disciplinary proceedings—raises critical legal questions. The recent landmark decision of the Orissa High Court in Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2025, decided on 11 November 2025) addresses this nuanced issue.
The case revolved around the denial of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a government doctor seeking to travel abroad to visit his daughter and grandchild. The NOC was denied because disciplinary and vigilance proceedings were pending against him. This judgment provides important clarity on the limits of executive power, the scope of fundamental rights, and the necessity of judicial scrutiny when personal liberties are at stake.
Factual Background
Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera, a State Government employee working as a doctor, intended to visit his daughter living in Singapore. Approaching retirement (due on 31 January 2026), he submitted an online application for a passport and simultaneously applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC), as mandated for government employees under the Passport Manual, 2020.
However, his request for NOC was rejected twice by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Odisha—first on 12 July 2022 and again on 21 March 2025. The reasons stated were:
- Unauthorised absence: Dr. Behera was alleged to have remained absent without permission since 28 September 2013.
- Pending disciplinary proceedings: Three departmental proceedings were stated to be ongoing against him (although one had been dropped by the time of the second rejection).
Despite a favourable clarification by the High Court in a previous petition asking the authorities to reconsider his request, the NOC was denied again on the same grounds. Aggrieved, Dr. Behera filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the rejection orders and a direction to grant him NOC.
Issue
The primary legal question before the Court was:
- Whether the State Government is justified in refusing the issuance of a No Objection Certificate to a government employee solely on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings, thereby indirectly restricting his right to travel abroad?
This issue gave rise to ancillary questions regarding:
- The statutory basis for restricting passport issuance.
- Whether executive guidelines can override fundamental rights.
- The legal significance of pending disciplinary or vigilance proceedings.
Arguments Raised
Petitioner’s Contentions
Dr. Behera, represented by counsel Mr. S. Mallik, submitted:
- His right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, as held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
- No statutory provision prohibits issuance of NOC or passport during pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
- The disciplinary proceedings against him have been pending since 2015 and are yet to conclude; mere pendency cannot be equated with guilt.
- He assured cooperation with any ongoing vigilance cases and stated his intention was limited to a short family visit.
State’s Contentions
The State of Odisha argued:
- In accordance with a Government circular dated 28 January 2014, NOC cannot be issued to any employee against whom departmental proceedings are pending.
- The petitioner’s prolonged unauthorised absence and pending vigilance cases justified withholding the clearance.
Central Government’s Position
Appearing through the Regional Passport Officer, the Union of India clarified that:
- Under Clauses 4.23 to 4.25 of the Passport Manual, 2020, a government employee must submit an NOC or Identity Certificate to process a passport application.
- The Passport Authority merely ensures compliance but does not decide whether an NOC is justified.
Analysis and Findings
Justice Sashikanta Mishra delivered a detailed judgment allowing the writ petition. The judgment adopted a rights-centred analysis grounded in constitutional law and statutory interpretation.
1. Right to Travel Abroad and the Passport Act
The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Maneka Gandhi that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty, and any restriction must be backed by law—not mere executive instruction.
“Law here means ‘enacted law’ or ‘state law’… no person can be deprived of this right unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure.”
The Court observed:
- The Passport Act, 1967 does not specify pendency of disciplinary proceedings as a bar to passport issuance.
- The executive circular dated 28 January 2014 could not be construed as “law” under Article 21.
2. Executive Circular Cannot Override Fundamental Rights
The circular stated that NOC may be issued if there is no disciplinary proceeding. The Court interpreted this as a negative condition—not a mandatory bar.
Further, it held that executive circulars cannot impose restrictions on fundamental rights unless supported by statutory authority.
“Letter dated 28.01.2014 indirectly curbs the right of a person to travel abroad… This amounts to infringement of the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21.”
3. Presumption of Innocence
The Court underscored that mere pendency of proceedings cannot be equated with guilt. Disciplinary proceedings pending for a decade without conclusion cannot act as an indefinite denial of fundamental rights.
This principle aligns with decisions like:
- Mohammad Umar v. Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
- Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674
In Nitin Kapoor v. State of Odisha (2024), the Orissa High Court had emphasised that permission for international travel cannot be denied solely on the pendency of prosecution if the risk of absconding is low.
4. Discretion Must be Reasoned
Relying on Ashok Kumar Sipani v. Union of India, the Court held that discretion under the Passports Act cannot be exercised mechanically:
“The impugned order does not whisper a word as to why the passport of the petitioner was necessary to be denied…”
Thus, the rejection lacked application of mind and violated principles of natural justice.
Outcome
The Court quashed the rejection orders dated 12.07.2022 and 21.03.2025 and held:
“Decision of the authorities to refuse NOC to the petitioner amounts to infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21.”
The State was directed to issue the NOC within six weeks.
Conclusion
The judgment fortifies personal liberty in India by reasserting the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary State action. It sets a precedent by clarifying that pending disciplinary proceedings—unless supported by statutory law—cannot form the basis for restricting an employee’s right to international travel.
By adopting a rights-based interpretation, the Court balances State interests with individual freedoms, ensuring that procedural exigencies are not weaponised to curtail constitutionally protected liberties indefinitely.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams