Author: Meena Khan

Court: Supreme Court

Date of judgment: 25 January, 1978

Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

Respondent: union of India

Citation: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Facts of the case.

Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and public figure, was issued a passport on 1st July 1976 under the passport act, 1967. Barely a year later, on 2nd July 1977, she received a latter, from the regional passport officer, Delhi, informing her that the Government of India had decided to impound her passport “in public interest’ under section 10(3)(c) of the act. She was directed to surrender her passport within seven days.

Surprised by this sudden order, Maneka Gandhi wrote to the authorities requesting the reasons for this action, the Ministry of external affairs, in its reply dated 6th July 1977, merely stated that the passport had been impounded “in the interests of the general public” and refused to disclose specific reasons, citing national interest.

Feeling that her fundamental rights were being violated, Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under article 32 before the supreme court. She argued that the order was arbitrary, without proper justification, and in violation of her rights under articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution.

Issues raised

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty under article 21.

• Whether the passport act, 1967 provides a “procedure established by law” as required under article 21 before depriving a person of their liberty.

• Whether section 10(3)(c) of the passport act violates articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the constitution.

• Whether the impounding order violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard.

Arguments by the petitioner

1. Right to travel abroad as personal liberty:

The petitioner argued that the right to travel abroad forms part of “personal liberty’ under article 21. Therefore, no one can be deprived of it except according to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure prescribed by law.

• Absence of fair procedure:

The passport act does not provide a clear or reasonable procedure for impounding a passport. Even if some procedure exists, it is arbitrary since it denies the affected person an opportunity to be heard before such an action is taken.

• Violation of fundamental rights:

Section 10(3)(c) and the impugned order violate:

·

• Article 14 – due to arbitrariness and unequal treatment.

• Article 19(1)(a) – since restricting travel hampers the right to free speech and expression, especially for a journalist.

• Article 19(1)(g) – as it affects her professional right to practice journalism.

·

• Article 21 – as the deprivation of personal liberty occurred without a fair procedure.

• Contravention of natural justice:

The order was passed without giving her a chance to present her case, violating the Audi alteram partem rule (no one should be condemned unheard).

• Lack of genuine public interest:

The phrase “in the interests of the general public” must reflect an actual and present need, not a speculative or future concern. Merely citing public interest without evidence is not sufficient justification.

Arguments by the respondent (union of India)

1. Right to travel abroad not protected by article 19:

The attorney general contended that article 19(1) only protects rights within India’ hence, the right to travel abroad does not fall within its scope.

• Legitimacy of passport act:

The passport act, 1967 was enacted to regulate travel and ensure national security, not to infringe fundamental rights. The government can impound passports for public safety or national interest.

• Non-disclosure of reasons justified:

Disclosure of reasons foe impounding a passport could harm public interest or national security; hence, the refusal to disclose was justified.

• Support from A.K. Gopalan case 

The respondents relied on A.K. Gopalan v. state of madras (1950), which held that articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive, and that any deprivation of liberty is valid if done according to “procedure established by law” even if that procedure is harsh or unreasonable.

• Respect for legislative intent:

The framers of the constitution deliberately avoided the American Phrase “due process of law” and adopted “procedure established by law” to limit judicial interference. Hence, courts should not reinterpret it.

Judgment

The supreme court delivered a landmark judgment, fundamentally expanding the interpretation of article 21 and reshaping Indian constitution law.

1. Integration of article 14, 19, and 21:

The court overruled A.K. Gopalan, holding that article 14. 19. And 21 are not separate but interconnected. Any law depriving a person of liberty must satisfy all three – it must be just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

• Fair procedure under article 21:

The court ruled that “procedure established by law” in article 21 does not merely mean any procedure enacted by law, it must be reasonable, just, and non-oppressive. Thus, article 21 was brought closer to the American concept of “process of law”

• Expanded scope of personal liberty:

The court interpreted “personal liberty” in the widest possible sense, covering a range of rights that make life meaningful. The right to travel abroad was held

to be within the ambit of article 21, reaffirming the principle established in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967).

• Constitutionality of section 10(3)(c):

Section 10(3)(c) of the passport act, 1967 was upheld as valid, but the exercise of power under it must conform to natural justice. Administrative orders must not be arbitrary or mala fide.

• Natural justice and administrative action:

The court emphasized that natural justice is part of fair procedure under article 21. Even administrative decisions must provide an opportunity to be heard, unless exceptional circumstances justify withholding reasons.

• Guidance for future cases:

The court directed that in all cases involving deprivation of liberty, authorities must follow fair and transparent procedures, ensuring compliance with articles 14, 19, and 21 together.