LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Passport Act, 1967; S. 10(3) (C ) –
Constitution of India; Art. 19 and 21 --
Facts of the Case : 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.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
3. Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21 of the constitution.
4. Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.

Judgement and the Guidelines Issued:
>> To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”, it violates Article 14 as it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
>> Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power as it doesn’t provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
>> Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article as 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 law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.
>> It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
>> The rule was an enabling law which must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Precondition for grant of maintenance -- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife -- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Rejection of Insurance claim – Insurance by home loan borrower – On 29.09.2008 premium was deducted from loan account towards Insurance company -- Proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured – Insured person died on 17.12.2009 – Neither the bank nor the insurance company had ever informed the proposer or the appellant herein about the non-issuance of policy for want of medical certificate -- in the case of joint housing loan the full loan amount will be insured even if the policy is issued in the name of only one loanee -- Claim to pay the outstanding loan amount rejected – State Commission allowed the claim – National Commission set aside the order of State Commission – Supreme Court upheld the observation of State Commission.

Revenue Record – Whether Revenue Record establish title – Held: revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.

Possession follows title -- Held: Possession follows title is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of waste lands, or where nothing is known about possession one-way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 -----
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; ------- Whether presence of Arbitration clause in the agreement oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum ----- Observation of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by holding that Arbitration clause in the agreement cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer For a notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Anti Suit Injunction -- An anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity. It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 -- It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Held: The present decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign court is without jurisdiction according to the Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that Court -- The decree is also passed on a ground which is not available under the Act which is applicable to the marriage -- the decree has been obtained by the 1st appellant by stating that he was the resident of the Missouri State when the record shows that he was only a bird of passage there and was ordinarily a resident of the State of Louisiana – Such divorce decree cannot be taken into consideration.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Rules framed are The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005; Ss. 18, 19, 20 ------ Relief when the complainant/wife failed to prove Domestic Violence -------- Held: since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 165 – Right of Court to put question – Held: Court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;