The Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘COI’), under Part III, guarantees Fundamental Rights to all individuals. Specifically, Articles 14, 19, and 21 ensure the protection of equality before the law, personal liberty, and certain freedoms to citizens. These rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away, and any restriction must be in accordance with a law that is just, fair, and follows the principles of natural justice.
The Indian Judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution. In cases of conflict or violation of these Fundamental Rights, an aggrieved individual or citizen has the right to seek constitutional remedies by approaching the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 or the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the COI by filing a writ petition.
The present case is a landmark judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dealt with the scope of personal liberty under Article 21, as well as the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). It also addressed the essential application of the principles of natural justice, in the context of the impounding of the petitioner’s passport by the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘UOI’).
Background of the Case
The Petitioner, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi, was issued an Indian passport by the Regional Passport Office, Delhi, on June 1, 1976. Subsequently, on July 2, 1977, she received a letter from the same office informing her that her passport had been impounded. She was directed to surrender the passport within seven days of receiving the notice, which was issued with reference to Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Exercising her right under Section 10(5) of the Act, the Petitioner requested a copy of the reasons for the impounding order. However, the Ministry of External Affairs (hereinafter referred to as ‘MEA’), in its response, merely stated that the action had been taken "in the interest of the general public" and did not furnish the specific grounds or a copy of the statement of reasons.
Aggrieved by this action, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, filing a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Union of India (hereinafter ‘UOI’). The Petitioner contended that the action was arbitrary and violative of her Fundamental Rights guaranteed under:
Article 14 – Right to equality before the law,
Article 19(1)(a) – Right to freedom of speech and expression, and
Article 19(1)(g) – Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Petitioner Contention
The contentions raised by the Petitioner in the present case are as follows:
The order issued by the Passport Office to impound her passport was arbitrary and not in compliance with the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, as the grounds for impounding were not supported by law.
A passport is a necessary and legally recognized document for any Indian citizen intending to travel outside the country. The Petitioner’s passport had been duly issued following the prescribed legal procedure. Any challenge to its validity or authenticity must fall strictly within the grounds enumerated under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.
In such circumstances, the legal safeguards provided under Section 10(5) of the Act must be followed. This section mandates that the person concerned must be furnished with a brief statement of the reasons for the action taken, unless the case falls under specific exceptions.
The exception to disclosure under Section 10(5) may be invoked only where:
There is a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
There is a risk to the security of India or its friendly relations with any foreign country;
It is otherwise not in the interest of the public.
The Petitioner is a respected citizen and a professional journalist. The grounds mentioned in the exception clause under Section 10(5) are clearly not attracted in her case.
The way the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) refused to provide the statement of reasons was contrary to the statutory mandate and failed to meet the requirement of procedural fairness.
Consequently, the actions of the Passport Office and the MEA suffer from the following legal infirmities:
The decision to impound the passport was arbitrary;
The due process of law was not followed;
The action of the Union of India and its subordinate authorities resulted in the violation of the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed under:
Article 14 – Right to equality before the law;
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression;
Article 19(1)(g) – Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business;
Article 21 – Right to personal liberty, which was infringed by the impounding of her passport.
Respondent Contention
The Regional Passport office, Delhi is subordinate body under MEA under the UOI, the contentions from the UOI was as below,
The application for passport can be submitted by any person under Sec. 5 (1) of the ACT. The Passport Office is authorised body formed under the Sec. 2 (c) and empowered under Sec. 5 (2) to take decisions on passport issue administrative function.
The Passport Office is vested with the power to invoke the passport in case of situations conferred in the Sec.10 (3) and same was followed as per the procedure.
The action of the MEA on part of rejecting the demanded copy of order was bona fide action under the statutory provisions under Sec. 10 (5) on ground of safeguarding the public interest.
The MEA as part of UOI is a Sovereign body and the as the State body it has powers to take decision which are is best interest of the public at large and there was no arbitrariness in the challenged actions of revoking passport and subsequent rejection in the copy of the order.
Analysis of Case
Q1. Is the Passport Office under the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) a lawful authority for administering matters related to the issuance and impounding of passports? Answer: Yes, the Passport Office functions as the competent authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and is duly authorised to handle administrative matters related to the issuance and impounding of passports.
Q2. Does the Passport Office have absolute powers to impound a passport? Answer: No, the Passport Office does not possess absolute powers. Its authority is confined to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. All actions, including the impounding of a passport, must adhere strictly to the procedures laid down in the Act and must not be arbitrary or unjustified.
Q3. Was the process followed by the Passport Office reasonable and just? Answer: The process followed in this case appears to be unreasonable and lacking sufficient justification. The impounding order was issued without disclosing substantive grounds, rendering the action unjust from the perspective of the Petitioner.
Q4. Did the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) follow the principles of natural justice by refusing to provide a copy of the impounding order? Answer: No, the refusal to furnish the reasons for the impounding of the passport violates the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner had a legitimate right to be informed of the grounds for the action taken against her. The MEA's justification based on "public interest" does not appear to be legally sustainable in this context.
Judgement
The Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising seven judges and presided over by the Chief Justice of India, delivered its judgment on 25th July 1977. The Court directed that the Petitioner’s passport be deposited with the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and disposed of the writ petition with costs.
Key findings of the Hon’ble Court are as follows:
The action of the Passport Office in impounding the Petitioner’s passport was held to be arbitrary, and the grounds cited for such action were not bona fide.
The procedure adopted was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The refusal to provide the Petitioner with a copy of the order and the reasons for the action by the Ministry of External Affairs amounted to suppression of the Petitioner’s legal rights.
While the Union of India (UOI) and its subordinate authorities function as sovereign bodies, they are still bound by the Constitution and cannot act unjustly or in a manner that violates Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
As a journalist, the Petitioner is entitled to exercise her right to practice her profession under Article 19(1)(g). The UOI cannot impose restrictions on her international travel except in accordance with a valid law in force.
The Fundamental Right to personal liberty under Article 21 was violated in this case. The restriction imposed on the Petitioner’s right to travel abroad, by unlawfully impounding her passport without due process and valid justification, infringed upon her liberty. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty is not confined to the territorial limits of India and includes the freedom to travel abroad, which is an essential part of an individual’s personal liberty.
Conclusion
The Constitution of India guarantees the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21. These rights can only be limited by a legally competent authority and strictly through a procedure established by law that is just, fair, and reasonable. This framework—often referred to as the "Golden Triangle" of the Constitution—forms the foundation of the Fundamental Rights regime. Any infringement or violation of even one of these rights is unconstitutional and cannot be justified.
The State has a constitutional obligation to protect these rights and cannot, under any circumstances, act in a manner that overrides or suppresses them. The principle of natural justice is a cornerstone of democratic governance, and the failure to provide reasons or disclose the rationale behind any sovereign action stands in direct contradiction to this principle.
Case Laws
A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR [1967] SC 1269.
R. C. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1973] 3 SCR 530
Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal [1973] 1 SCR 856.
Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 2 SCR 832
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] SCR 284
Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, [1952] SCR 435
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another [1974] 2 SCR 348