Introduction

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c) of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter. Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general public.Later, a writ petition was filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The main issues of this case were as follows-

  • Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty 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 21of the constitution.
  • Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.
Judgement Highlights:

  • To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
  • Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
  • Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article and the procedure practiced is worst.
  • Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).
  • A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.
  • One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.
  • Also, by providing a liberal interpretation to Maneka Gandhi, the courts had set a benchmark for coming generations to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III of the constitution.
  • Today, the courts have successfully interpreted different cases in order to establish socio-economic and cultural right under the umbrella of Article 21 such as –  Right to Clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment, etc.as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty.
  • The judgment opened new dimensions in the judicial activism and PIL’s were appreciated and judges took interests in liberal interpretation wherever it was needed in the prevailing justice.

Conclusion

  • After this case, the Supreme court became the watchdog to protect the essence of the constitution and safeguard the intention of the constitutional assembly who made it. The majority of judges opined that any legislation or section should be just, fair and reasonable and in its absence even the established or prevailed law can be considered arbitrary. 
  • The judges mandated that any law which deprives a person of his personal liberty should stand the test of Article 21, 14 as well as 19 of the constitution. Also, principles of natural justice are sheltered under article 21 and therefore, no person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court. Further, to declare any state action or legislation invalid, the “golden triangle” i.e, articles 14, 19 and 21 must be invoked.
  • The judgment while saved the citizens from unquestionable actions of Executive, also saved the sanctity of Parliamentary law when it did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) of 1967 Act. The court also reminded the authorities to only rarely use the prerogative of section 10(5) so as to satisfy that their actions were rational and well thought. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Mr. Ashwin Abraham Alex, law student at School of Law, Jagannath Institute of Management & Technology and was an intern at MyLawman. He can be reached at ashwin9854@gmail.com. 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.

 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here