Contact Us
The Best JUDGEMENT Search Engine...
The Best JUDGEMENT Search Engine...
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”.
