This article is authored by Gauri Bansal and edited by Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR and Adv. Prapti Singh.
SC/0133/1978
FACTS
The Regional Passport Office, Delhi sent Maneka Gandhi a letter asking her to submit her passport within seven days. The letter detailed that the Government of India had decided to impound her passport on the grounds of ‘public interest’.
Thereafter, Maneka Gandhi requested details and the ‘Statement of Reasons’ on which the Regional Passport Officer had impounded her passport. To this she was told by the Ministry of External Affairs, that there were orders to not issue her a copy of the Statement of Reasons. She then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
- Whether right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liber- ty guaranteed under Article 21?
- Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said Article?
- Whether Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether the impugned order of the Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice?
HELD
Procedures depriving individuals of their right to life and liberty ought to be fair and reasonable. The Court held: “The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The question whether the procedure prescribed by a law which curtails or takes away the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is reasonable or not has to be considered not in the abstract or on hypothetical considerations like the provision for a full-dressed hearing as in a Courtroom trial, but in the context, primarily, of the purpose which the Act is intended to achieve and of urgent situations which those who are charged with the duty of administering the Act may be called upon to deal with.” The Court in this case held that, the right to travel abroad falls within the expression “personal liberty and is thus a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
As regards Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, 1967 which reads: “If the passport authority deem it necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with the foreign country, or in the interests of the general public”, the Court while acknowledging the validity of the section held that it should be used sparingly and with great care and circumspection.
With respect to the power of passport authorities to decline to furnish reasons for impounding the passport, the Court held that the law cannot permit the exercise of such a power to keep reasons undisclosed if the sole reason for doing so is to keep reasons away from Judicial scrutiny.
The Court held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is valid, however, the question that has to be considered is that whether the order made under it is invalid in that whether it is contravening a fundamental right. Where an impounding order is made under the Section with the aim of abridging freedom of speech and expression or the right to carry on a profession, invalid. that order would stand
Recognizing the interplay of Articles 21, 19 and 14 the Court held that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and even the law prescribing the procedure for deprivation of personal liberty of a person, will have to stand the test both Articles 19 and 14.
