BENCH: Chief Justice M.H. Beg, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice N.L. Untwalia, Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, and Justice P.S. Kailasam
FACTS:
Ms. Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act of 1967. However, on July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Office in New Delhi ordered the seizure of her passport. The petitioner was not informed of the grounds or reasons behind this unilateral decision or the arbitrary action taken by the Ministry of External Affairs, which was justified as being in the public interest. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, arguing that the state's action in seizing her passport constituted a clear violation of her right to personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Notably, the Court referred to the case Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam, where it was established that the right to travel abroad falls within the protections provided by Article 21. This case was significant in highlighting that, despite the lack of clarity regarding the extent to which the Passport Act might limit or infringe upon this specific right, the Court acknowledged that such actions must align with constitutional protections, particularly in relation to personal liberty. In reply, the authorities argued that disclosing the reasons for seizing the passport was not in the "interest of the general public." In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32, asserting that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violated fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
ISSUES:
The case raised several critical constitutional questions regarding the nature and scope of fundamental rights in India. First, it questioned whether fundamental rights are absolute or conditional, and what limitations exist on the rights granted to Indian citizens by the Constitution. The case also explored whether the Right to Travel Abroad falls under the protections provided by Article 21, which safeguards personal liberty. Furthermore, the relationship between Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression, etc.), and 21 was examined to understand their interconnectedness and how they collectively protect individual freedoms. Another issue was the interpretation of the phrase “Procedure established by Law” under Article 21, particularly whether the procedure followed in this case was just and reasonable. The case also addressed whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967, which authorizes the seizure of a passport, violated fundamental rights and, if so, whether such legislative enactments were enforceable. Lastly, the case questioned whether the impugned order issued by the Regional Passport Officer adhered to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the petitioner’s rights were fairly considered.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 was void, as it violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by granting broad, unchecked powers to the passport authority. The provision also breached Article 14 by denying the affected party an opportunity to be heard or present a defense. Additionally, it was found to violate Article 21, as the procedure followed did not align with the reasonable and just process required. However, the Court did not issue a formal ruling on the petition and decided that the petitioner’s passport would remain in the custody of the authorities until deemed otherwise.
In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), ruling that it includes the right to travel abroad. The Court found that the impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport violated her personal liberty and emphasized that any action depriving a person of their rights must follow a fair and reasonable procedure. It rejected the arbitrary procedure under the Passport Act, which did not allow the individual to be heard or informed of the reasons for the action. The Court also criticized the broad powers given to the government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and affirmed that such powers must be subject to checks and safeguards. Ultimately, the judgment reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and the need for reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights.
ANALYSIS:
The landmark decision in this case remains a foundational case for the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Following this judgment, the Supreme Court upheld its role as the protector of the Constitution and its objectives. The Court ruled that any legislation or provision must be “just,” “fair,” and “reasonable.” If it fails to meet these criteria, even established or universally accepted laws can be declared arbitrary. The Court emphasized that any law that infringes on personal liberty must comply with the provisions of Article 21, Article 14, and Article 19. It also affirmed that Article 21 safeguards natural justice principles, ensuring individuals have the right to be heard in court. Additionally, the Court highlighted the importance of the "golden triangle principle," which requires any state action or law to adhere to the protections provided by these three Articles to avoid being deemed unconstitutional.
info@adhwaitha.com
