Short note on Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI

 Short note on the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

Summary of Facts

The petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976,

under the Passport Act, 1967. Later on July 2nd, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New

Delhi, had ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport by a letter posted. On being asked

about the reasons for her passport confiscation, The Ministry of External Affairs declined to

produce any reasons “in the interest of the general public.”

Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

stating the seize of her passport as the violation of her fundamental rights; specifically Article 14

(Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21

(Right to Life and Liberty) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Issues before the 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?

Judgement

It was held that:

1. Before the enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport

whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle abroad. Also, the executives

were entirely discretionary while issuing the passports in an unguided and unchallenged

manner. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam, the SC stated that – “personal liberty”

in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and travel abroad. Hence, no person can be

deprived of such rights, except through procedures established by law. Since the State had not

made any law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a case, the

confiscation of the petitioner’s passport is in violation of Article 21 and its grounds being

unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of Article 14.

2. Further, clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides that when the state

finds it necessary to seize the passport or do any such action in the interests of sovereignty and

integrity of the nation, its security, its friendly relations with foreign countries, or for the interests

of the general public, the authority is required to record in writing the reason of such act and on-

demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of the passport.

3. The Central Government never did disclose any reasons for impounding the petitioner’s

passport rather she was told that the act was done in “the interests of the general public”

whereas it was found out that her presence was felt required by the respondents for the

proceedings before a commission of inquiry. The reason was given explicit that it was not really

necessarily done in the public interests and no ordinary person would understand the reasons

for not disclosing this information or the grounds of her passport confiscation.

4. “The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not distinctive nor

mutually exclusive.” Any law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to stand a test of one

or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, “ex-

hypothesi” must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be projected in the procedure.

5. The phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” instead of “due process of

law” which is said to have procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality.

6. There is a clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice i.e., audi

alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair and unjust even when a statute is

silent on it.

7. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967, is not violative of any fundamental rights,

especially Article 14. In the present case, the petitioner is not discriminated in any manner under

Article 14 because the statute provided

8. Unrestricted powers to the authorities. the ground of “in the interests of the general public” is

not vague and undefined, rather it is protected by certain guidelines which can be borrowed

from Article 19.

9. It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of violation of any rights of an individual

and when the State had violated it. But that does not mean, Right to Freedom of Speech and

Expression is exercisable only in India and not outside. Merely because the state’s action is

restricted to its territory, it does not mean that Fundamental Rights are also restricted in a

similar manner.

10. It is possible that certain rights related to human values are protected by fundamental rights

even if it is not explicitly written in our Constitution. For example, Freedom of the press is

covered under Article 19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned there.

11. The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free Speech and Expression as both

have different natures and characters.

12. A.K Gopalan was overruled 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. Earlier

in Gopalan, the majority held that these provisions in itself are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to

correct its earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and are

dependent on each other.

References:

-blog ipleaders