- ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Sri S.V. Maruthi Sankar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Balaswami, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Ravikanth, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Government Administration. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : ‘‘It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate order, more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 bearing R.C.NO. 19180/APIC/Estt./2025 dated 24.07.2025 whereby the application of the Petitioner seeking leave for the purpose of attending an International Visitor Leadership Program in U.S.A was rejected as being illegal, arbitrary, violative to principles of naturaljustice and Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently, direct the Respondents to grant the sanctioned leave to the Petitioner to attend the said program for the period 25.08.2025 to 13.09.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 3. The Writ Petitioner is working as State Information Commissioner. She had applied for availing Casual Leave for attending a programme in the United States of America. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner is originally a Seasoned Media Professional with over two decades of experience on frontline journalism across the Country and abroad including coverage of conflict zones, political and humanitarian disasters. She has been invited to a prestigious International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP), sponsored by United States Department of State in recognition of her distinguished professional background. 4. It is stated in Para-4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition regards the benefits that the Writ Petitioner would have by attending the as International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP). The Writ Petitioner has also served as Senior Electron'"' Media Journalist and covered national and international events such as 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Pulwama incident, Kargil conflict and Turkey Earthquake etc.,, The Writ Petitioner has also interviewed several noted Leaders in India. 5. An invite was received by the Writ Petitioner with regard to International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) in the month of February, 2025 for the to be conducted from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025. The Writ programme Petitioner made a request to this effect on 25.02.2025. 5. An invite was received by the Writ Petitioner with regard to International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) in the month of February, 2025 for the to be conducted from 10.03.2025 to 28.03.2025. The Writ programme Petitioner made a request to this effect on 25.02.2025. On 24.02.2025, the General Administrative Department, vide G.O.Rt.No.394 dated 24.02.2025, has accorded permission to the Writ Petitioner for the foreign visit to U.S.A for participation from 10.03.2025 to 28.02.2025. However, the Official Respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the Writ Petitioner by passing a Speaking Order on 04.03.2025. On 04.07.2025, the Writ Petitioner has once again made a Representation for sanction of Earned Leave from 22.08.2025 to 15.09.2025. The Writ Petitioner has also submitted several reminders to the Respondent No.1 on 10.07.2025, 14.07.2025, 18.07.2025. Due to inaction on the part of the Respondent No.1, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.19267 of 2025. While the said Writ Petition was pending challenging the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 had passed Order on 24.07.2025. For this reason, the said W.P.No. 19267 of 2025 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition challenging the Order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 24.07.2025. This Rejection Order dated 24.07.2025 (Ex.P. 1) is now challenged in the present Writ Petition. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner has now applied for availing Casual Leave to attend the International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) from 25.08.2025 to 13.09.2025, which is for a period of eighteen (18) days. It is submitted that out of the 18 days, the working days are only 13 days. 6. The preliminarily reason for rejection of the Leave is that there are only four (04) State Information Commissioners and one (01) Chief Information Commissioner and therefore the work would suffer inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner is required to handle huge pendency of Complaints and Second Appeals. - 7. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that out of the eight sanctioned posts with regard to the Information Commissioner, the Government has filled-up only five (05) posts and that by non-filling up of the posts, the pendency of cases which got mounted cannot be put as a reason for declining the permission to the Writ Petitioner. - 7. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that out of the eight sanctioned posts with regard to the Information Commissioner, the Government has filled-up only five (05) posts and that by non-filling up of the posts, the pendency of cases which got mounted cannot be put as a reason for declining the permission to the Writ Petitioner. In any case, the number of working days are only thirteen (13) in number and therefore, the Writ Petitioner can always make up the absence after her return. He would also submit that to avail Casual Leave, particularly, for attending such programmes which are useful for the future career of the Petitioner is a matter of right and that the administrative exigency on account of shortage of Information Commissioners cannot be a reason for declining the permission to the Writ Petitioner. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner has secured the United States VISA and also purchased the round trip tickets. It is stated that any further delay would cause inconvenience to the Petitioner inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner would not be able to make proper arrangements for travel abroad. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has filed Counter-Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 12.08.2025. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has taken this Court through the contents of the Counter- Affidavit raising various contentions. The contents of the Counter-Affidavit are dehors to the reasons for rejection which are reflected from the impugned Order dated 24.07.2025. By filing the Counter-Affidavit, the Official Respondents have tried to make out a new case against the Writ Petitioner. 9. This Court, having considered the contents in the Counter-Affidavit, is of the opinion that the contentions raised in the Counter-Affidavit are simply untenable inasmuch as the state cannot deprive the Writ Petitioner in travelling abroad. 10. The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed a Memo on 14.08.2025, under which the copies of the following Judgments have been filed on the legal preposition that the Respondent Authorities have got the power to deny the leave and permission to travel abroad on grounds of administrative exigencies: - 1) State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Sanjay KumarBansal (2009) 15 SCO 168. 2) Suman Bishnoi Us. State of Rajasthan 2025 SCO online Raj 347/W.P. No. 3073/2025. Sanjay KumarBansal (2009) 15 SCO 168. 2) Suman Bishnoi Us. State of Rajasthan 2025 SCO online Raj 347/W.P. No. 3073/2025. 3) Vikas Chaudhary vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (UHS), Rohtak and others CWP-15486-2018 (O&M) Date 22.08.2024. 4) MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD, Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AIR 1966 SC 671 . 5) Union of India \/s. Jyothi Prakash Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396 . 6) State of Maharastra and Another \/s, Lok Shikshan Sansatha and others (1971) 2 SCC 410 . 7) Union of India Vs. G.R. Prabhakar and others (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 183. 8) Carborundum Universal LTD Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 462. 9) Union of India and Another Versus Jesus Sales Corporation (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 69. 10) Andhra Cements Ltd. Versus Government of A. P. and others 2000 SCC OnLine AP 5: (2000) 1 ALD 388 : 2000) 1 ALT 266. 11)Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online AP 5022; (2020) 5 ALT 444 11. The Ld. Counsel has not pointed any particular paragraph in the above Judgments, which can indicate that the Executive prerogative can override the Fundamental Rights, and particularly, the most cherished right under Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 12. Article 13 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays down a right to leave one’s country and to return to his country. LORD DENNING in his treaties “FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW”, under the heading “Personal Freedom”, observed: - By personal freedom, I mean the freedom of every law abidinq citizen to think what he will, to say what he will and to go where he will on his lawfully occasions without let or hindrance from any otherpersons." 13. In Kent v. Dulles (1957) 357 US 116. the Supreme Court of United States, employing the expressions “Due Process’ under the 5th Amendment with the word ‘Liberty’; had held; The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law of the Fifth Amendment. Freedom of Movement across frontiers in either direction ii/as a part of our heritage. Travel abroad may be necessary for a livelihood. Freedom of Movement across frontiers in either direction ii/as a part of our heritage. Travel abroad may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears orreads. 14. This principle was also reiterated in California v. Aznavonian: 439 US 170 and Harbert Apthekar v. Secretary of State (12 Law Ed. 992). It was held: Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important forjob and business opportunities - for cultural, political and social activities - for all the commingly which agregarious the man enjoys 15. It is also held: we cannot exercise and enjoy citizenship in world perspective without the right to travel abroad; and I see no constitutional way to curb it unless, as I said, the power to detain." 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court had dealt with the similar issue in Satish Chandra Verma \/s. Union of India : (2019) SCC OnLine SC 2048. The relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder: 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 ofaction, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom isa genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248 ). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas In Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows: - "Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right ofgreat significance." 17. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider whether a person living in India has a Fundamental Right to travel abroad in Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others : (1967) 3 SCR 525 ; AIR 1967 SC 1836 ; 1967 SCC OnLine SC 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had formulated the above question in Para No. 12 and had answered the same in Para No.31 of the said Order, which is usefully extracted hereunder: “31. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others : (1967) 3 SCR 525 ; AIR 1967 SC 1836 ; 1967 SCC OnLine SC 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had formulated the above question in Para No. 12 and had answered the same in Para No.31 of the said Order, which is usefully extracted hereunder: “31. For the reasons mentioned above we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right”. 18. Insofar as the right of the Petitioner is concerned, the claim of the Writ Petitioner is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India ; (2019) SCC OnLine SC 2048, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by Order dated 09.04.2019 had categoricallyheld that the pendency of Departmental Proceedings cannot be a ground to prevent the Appellant to travel abroad. It was conceived by the Hon’ble Apex Court that right to travel abroad is basic human right which cannot be abrogated. The right of the Writ Petitioner is also fortified by the dictum in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another; (1978) 1 SCC 248 . 19. In the light of the above judgments, this Court is of the view that the reasons expressed by the Official Respondents in denying the grant of Casual Leave to the Writ Petitioner for attending the International Visitor Leadership Programme sponsored by the U.S. Department of State from 25.08.2025 to 13.09.2025 are not only untenable but are arbitrary, irrational and are in violation of the Fundamental Rights. 20 In view of the above authoritative decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards the paramountcy and inviolability of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with Article 19(1)(d), the Judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not of any relevance. 21. Accordingly, the impugned Proceeding bearing R.C.No.19180/APIC/Estt./2025 dated 24.07.2025 (Ex.P.1) is set aside. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not of any relevance. 21. Accordingly, the impugned Proceeding bearing R.C.No.19180/APIC/Estt./2025 dated 24.07.2025 (Ex.P.1) is set aside. There shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to issue fresh Orders on or before 5.00 P.M of 22.08.2025, thereby permitting the Writ Petitioner to travel abroad for the scheduled programme. 22. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 23. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.