| Citation | 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621 |
| Date of Judgment | 25 January, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme court of India |
| Case Type | Writ petition |
| Petitioner | Maneka Gnadhi |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| Bench | M. Hameedullah (Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Untwalia, N.L., Fazalali, S.M. & Kailasam, P.S. |
| Referred | Constitution of India, 1950 |
FACTS:
According to the Passport Act of 1967, the petitioner received a passport on June 1st, 1976. On July 4, 1977, the petitioner got a letter from the Regional Passport Officer in Delhi dated July 2, 1977, informing her that the Indian government had chosen to seize her passport “in the public interest” in accordance with section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
After seven days of receiving that letter, the petitioner was required to turn in her passport. The petitioner wrote to the Regional Passport Officer right away and asked him to give a copy of the statement of grounds for issuing the order in accordance with section 10. (5). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of India responded on July 6, 1977. that the Government opted not to give her a copy of the explanation of reasons for the making of the decision “in the interest of the general public.” After that, the petitioner filed the current Writ Petition to contest the government’s decision to confiscate her passport without providing a cause. In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution alleging that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.
ISSUES BEFORE THE APEX COURT:
- whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution of India?
- Whether ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.
- What is the connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Determining the scope of “Procedure established by Law”.
- Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is, whether such legislation is a concrete Law?
- Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of natural justice?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The Petitioner’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, life and personal liberty, the right to travel outside the country, and the right to freedom of movement have all been violated by the State through the administrative order that seized the passport on July 4, 1977.
The clauses in Articles 14, 19, and 21 should be interpreted collectively and do not conflict with one another. Natural justice norms and the actual spirit of constitutionalism can only be upheld by a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation.
Even though India may not have accepted the American concept of “due process of law,” the legal process should be reasonable, fair, and not arbitrary.
Article 21 is violated by Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act since it is the freedom and the right to life are protected by this Article.
It is universally regarded as a key aspect of the principles of natural justice that Audi Altrem Partem, or the opportunity to be heard, is essential. Even if none of the Constitution’s clauses specifically mention these natural justice concepts, the spirit of the Bill of Rights embraces the essence of these ideas.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT:
According to the Advocate General of India, no provision of Article 19(1) ever applied to the “Right to Go Overseas,” and as a result, Article 19 is not dependent on the ability of the Central Government to demonstrate the propriety of its conduct.
The Passport Law was not intended in any way to undermine the Basic Rights. Also, the government shouldn’t be required to provide justification for impounded or seized passports in the sake of public safety. Hence, even if the statute violated Article 19, it should not be overturned. The petitioner’s passport was also seized since she had to appear before a committee for an investigation.
The reply reiterated the idea established in A.K. Gopalan, arguing that the fundamental principles of natural justice cannot be applied to the word law under Article 21. Therefore, the fundamentals of natural justice are hazy and unclear.
As a result, such nebulous and unclear laws shouldn’t be included in the constitution. The provisions of Articles 14 and 19 are also contained in Article 21, which has a very broad scope. But only when a measure directly violates Articles 14 and 19 can it be said to violate Article 21 of the Constitution. As a result, the passport law is constitutional. Article 21 expressly states that “process established by law” is acceptable and does not have to withstand the rationality test.
During establishing this constitution, the framers disputed the concepts of British “procedure established by law” and American “due process of law” in detail. The glaring omission of the due process of law from the constitutional clauses reveals the thinking behind this constitution’s drafting. It is important to preserve and honour the framers’ minds and spirits.
JUDGEMENT:
The Passport Act 1967 introduced a new legal framework for regulating passports for individuals seeking to leave their native place and settle abroad. The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam emphasized that personal liberty includes the right to locomotion and travel abroad, and no person can be deprived of these rights without procedures established by law. The Central Government failed to disclose the reasons for impounding the petitioner’s passport, stating that it was done in the interests of the public. The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not distinctive nor mutually exclusive, and any law depriving a person of their personal liberty must be tested against one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. The phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” instead of “due process of law,” which is free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is not exercisable only in India, but it is possible that certain rights related to human values are protected by fundamental rights even if not explicitly written in the Constitution. The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free Speech and Expression, as both have different natures and characters. The court overruled A.K Gopalan, stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21, and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions.
Written by KAUSHAL S S, SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, REVA UNIVERSITY, an intern under legal vidhiya.
