Case Commentary

-Jasveen Singh1
Factual Summary
On the fourth of July, 1977, Smt. Maneka Gandhi got a letter from the Regional
Passport Office, Delhi, requesting that her present her travel permit (No. K-869668)
inside seven days from the day on which she had gotten such letter, i.e. before
eleventh July 1977. The letter expressed that it had been the choice of the
Government of India to appropriate her travel permit under Section 10(3)(c)of the
Passport Act 1967. The reason for such an appropriating, as advised to her, was
public interest.

Smt. Maneka Gandhi instantly sent a letter to the Regional Passport Officer, asking
about the grounds on which her international ID had been seized. She additionally
asked for him to give a duplicate of the Statement of Reasonsfor making of such a
request. The answer sent by the Ministry of External Affairs was that it was the
choice of the Government of India to appropriate the passport in light of a legitimate
concern for the overall population. Additionally, there were requests to not issue her
a duplicate of the Statement of Reasons. Smt. Maneka Gandhi along these lines
recorded an appeal to with respect to the issue.
Jurisdiction
Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution in the
Supreme Court challenging the request of the Govt. of India as violating her
fundamental rights ensured under Article 21 of the constitution.
JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CASE-
This case was decided by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1978.
The judges involved in the case were-

1. M.H. Beg, C.J.

2. P.N. Bhagwati.
3. Y.V. Chandrachud.

1
BA LLb,3 rd sem(Criminal law),Sap id-500052818,Roll no-R154216055,
4. V.R. Krishna Iyer.
5. N.L. Untwalia.
6. P.S. Kai asam.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The main issues of this case were as follows-

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 21of the constitution.
4. Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of
the principle of natural justice.

Judgements
It was held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act confers vague and undefined
power on the passport authorities, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
since it doesnt provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was
also held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word procedure as
mentioned in the clause, and the present procedure performed was the worst possible
one. The Court, however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter,
and ruled that the passport would remain with the authorities till they deem fit.
Issues
The main issues before the court in this case were as follows;
Whether section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14 of the
constitution.
Whether the order is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether the impugned order of the regional passport officer is in contravention of
the principles of natural justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE
 1. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution

Article 14 of the Constitution discusses equality under the eye of law. This
arrangement is completely against intervention or ambiguity of any kind to the extent
the activities of the official are concerned. Sec 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act gives
boundless powers on the visa specialists. Since it is dubious in its wordings, the
utilization of such an arrangement has not been plainly characterized in the Act. In
this way, this leaves a great deal of degree for the official to decipher it in whichever
way they need, and thus escape with a ton of activities under the appearance of
changed elucidation.

The arrangement additionally prompts intervention in the activities of the official.

The assertion originates from the way that it is totally in the hands of the passport
officials to choose whether or not, and how to continue in a specific case. The words
'considers it essential' give the travel permit experts finish opportunity to act in
whichever way they need, and in whichever cases they need. In this manner there is
no consistency or sensibility in the activities of the passport specialists, and their
activities could contrast from case to case.
Relying on the case E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another2,where the
court had held that Art 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian Constituion and must be
interpreted as wide as possible and the above observations The court held
that, Section 10(3)(c) of The Passport Act violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice: The Audi AlteramPartem

Rule

The audialteram partem rule is one of the three principles of natural justice, and
forms an important part in defining the constitutionality and fairness of any
procedure. The literal translation of audialteram partem is hear the other side. In a
laymans language it basically means that both the sides should be given the
opportunity to present their case before a decision is formulated for the case. In the
present case, Maneka Gandhi was denied reasons for the impounding of her passport,
which is unfair since every person has the right to know the grounds on which any

2
1974] 2 SCR 348
executive action is being taken against him/her. Also, she was never given a chance
to present her own case before the authorities.
The principle of audialteram partem requires that before the final order for the
impounding of her passport was passed, Smt. Maneka Gandhi should have been
given a chance to approach the authorities and to bring to light her part of the story
so that the order for impounding of the passport would have been just. There is
always the possibility of arriving at a one sided conclusion when only one party has
been heard and the other is denied that opportunity. Thus to keep the orders
completely objective and free from bias, it is absolutely imperative that both parties
to a situation must be given a chance to put forward their side of the story.
In the present case, during the Court proceedings itself, the passport authorities
ultimately ceded to the fact that they had been wrong in not providing Smt. Maneka
Gandhi a chance to present her case. Thus, they ultimately agreed to withhold the
order and give her a chance to present her case before the concerned authorities. But
what is important to note is that the authorities had been held wrong in the first place,
and only to mitigate the blame had they accepted to let her present her case. The
final change of events prevented them from being held liable. Otherwise, they were
definitely in the wrong and even the Court had held that their action had been
arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3. Section 10(3)(c) not Violative of Article 19(1)(A) and Article 19(1)(g) of

the Constitution

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution talks about the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed to all citizens of the country. Article 19(1)(g), on the other hand, talks
about freedom to carry out any trade and profession. Smt. Maneka Gandhi had
alleged that the order to impound her passport also violates these two rights of hers.
She alleged that the freedom of speech and expression also includes in its ambit the
right to travel abroad to express oneself among the people of other nations. Thus
according to her, the freedom of speech and expression also included the right to go
abroad to mingle with people, to carry out an exchange of ideas, to be able to
converse with the people of other nations, and thus to be able to freely speak and
express oneself outside India as well. Now since she had been denied the right to
travel out of India due to the impounding of her passport, she alleged that her right
to freedom of speech and expression had been violated. The same way, she said that
since she was a journalist, it was part of her profession to travel to different parts of
the world, to cover news issues. Thus by denying her the opportunity to travel
abroad, the passport authorities had violated her right of trade and profession.
It was held by the Court that even though the above mentioned contentions were
correct and that such an order would in fact amount to violations of Article 19(1)(a)
and 19(1)(g), there was nothing to prove that Ms. Gandhi was scheduled to travel on
an official tour at the time the impugned order was passed and her passport was
impounded. Neither was there anything to prove that she had some earnest need to
travel abroad towards realization of her right of expression under article 19(1), for
eg. Public speaking, dancing, literature, art, etc.Thus this argument was rejected and
the order was not held to be violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
OBITER DICTA OF THE CASE

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression {Article 19(1)(a)} is not bound only

to the national territories of India

This was a landmark opinion of the Court and one that was highly celebrated by the
entire country. The Court in the course of this case opined that the right to freedom
of speech and expression, as guaranteed to all the citizens of the country, was
limitless in that it had given to the citizens a vast number of rights irrespective of
whether they were in India or abroad. The Court held that if the Constitution makers
had intended this right to be bound by the territories of the country, then they would
have expressly mentioned so as they have done for various other rights, such as the
right to settle down freely, or the right to assemble freely. However, since no such
words had been added at the end of this provision, the Court felt that it was its duty
to give it the widest interpretation possible.
Also, supporting this view was the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th
December, 1948 and most of the fundamental rights which we find included in Part
III were recognised and adopted by the United Nations as the inalienable rights of
man in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This further supported the view
of the Court in that even though Indian Courts may not have jurisdiction outside the
territory of India, but these rights as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution would
still be maintained since they were now fortified by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which was adopted by almost all the countries around the globe.
Giving this kind of an opinion was a landmark judgement and even though it may
not have the value of a precedent (since it is an obiter),Courts all over the country
have adopted this view of the Supreme Court, and used it in their judgements.
 2. Article 21 is not to be read in isolation; all violations and procedural
requirement under Article 21 are to be tested forArticle 14 and Article
19 also.

The Supreme Court in the present case had adopted the widest possible interpretation
of the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Bhagwati, J. observed:
The expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers
a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of
them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional
protection under Article 19.
Also, with respect to the relationship between Article 19 and Article 21, the Court
held that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19, i.e., it must satisfy the requirement
of Article 19. The Court observed:The law must therefore now be settled that
Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a
procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty, and there is consequently no
infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21 such a law in so far
as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to
meet the challenges of that Article.Thus a law depriving a person of personal
liberty has not only to stand the test of Article 21, but it must stand the test
of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution as well.
Conclusion

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections
between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a
procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty has to fulfill the requirements
of Articles 14 and 19 also.
The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new and highly varied
interpretation to the meaning of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and expression to
the effect that the right is no longer restricted by the territorial boundaries of the
country. In fact, it extends to almost the entire world. Thus the case saw a high degree
of judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of expanding horizons of fundamental
rights in general, and Article 21 in particular.