Case Background


At
the time of this landmark case, the Indian Politics was witnessing the first
time non-Congress governance under the prime minister-ship of Morarji Desai
(Janata Dal). Several amendments of the 42nd Constitutional
Amendment (incorporated by the Indira Gandhi Government) were nullified by this
government through the 44th Amendment in 1978 and the Maneka Gandhi Case was also petitioned in the Supreme Court in this year and therefore, this
term can be considered as a crucial term for the Indian Judiciary System.
Before this case, some landmark cases including Keshavananda Bharati Case were
held by the Supreme Court, which was regarding the fight between the judiciary
and legislation about the supremacy of power. However, this case was about the
right of the people of India, and therefore, we need to give extra importance
while analyzing this case.






Fact




Regional
passport office of New Delhi asked Maneka Gandhi to submit her passport in
public interest. In response to such order, Maneka Gandhi asked the authority
to provide with the reason behind such order. However, the passport office denied
showing any valid reason. As a result of such denial, Maneka Gandhi filed a
Writ Petition in the Supreme Court.


Issues of the Case


The
issues of this case were:


1.
Is the right to go abroad a part of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India?


2.
Is Passports Act prescribes a “procedure”?


3.
Is freedom of speech and expression is confined to the territories of India?


4.
Whether the Passports Act violates Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.


Legislation


Article
14 of Constitution of India:

Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place
of birth


Article
19(1) of Constitution of India:

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have
the right
(a) To freedom of speech and
expression;
(b) To assemble peaceably and
without arms;
(c) To form associations or
unions;
(d) To move freely throughout
the territory of India;
(e) To reside and settle in
any part of the territory of India; and
(f) Omitted(g) To practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business




Article
21 of Constitution of India
:
Protection of life and personal liberty:
No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law 
(Indiakanoon.org).


Section
10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967:

The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a
passport or travel document, if the passport authority deems it necessary so to
do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests
of the general public
(
Passportindia.gov.in).


Argument of the Petitioner (Maneka
Gandhi)


1.
The petitioner, in this case, argued that the administrative order to surrender
the passport would cause a restriction over the right of the petitioner to
travel abroad


2.
The provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive, and
therefore, these articles are to be read together in order to understand the
spirit of the Constitution


3.
The petitioner also argued that section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967 violates
the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, and therefore the application
of this section is to be nullified.


4.
The passport authority denied to show the reason for asking the petitioner to
surrender the passport, and this violates the principles of Audi Altem Partem, means the opportunity
to be heard.


5.
The petitioner contended that even though the Indian Constitution does not
follow the American “due process of law”,
the procedure established by law must be reasonable, fair and just.


Argument of the Respondent (Union
of India)


1.
The respondent of the case argued that the petitioner was required to appear
before a committee for some enquiry, and for this reason, the passport was
impounded.


2.
The respondent stated that the principles of natural justice are vague and
ambiguities and therefore, such principles should not be taken into
consideration while reading the constitution.


3.
The Passports Act 1967 should not be said as unconstitutional as this law does
not violate Article 14 and 21 directly.


4.
It was also argued that as Article 21 contains the term “procedure established by law”, there is no need to pass the
reasonability testing.





Judgment


The
judgment made by the Supreme Court of India was threefold. FIRSTLY, the Court
declared the Passports Act as null and void. SECONDLY, the right to travel was
considered as a part of Article 21. FINALLY, the Court held that if a
particular law deprives a person of liberty; such law has to fulfil the
requirements of Article 14 and 21.


Effects of the Maneka Gandhi Case


After this case, a
new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved, and according to this
theory, the executive authorities will be empowered to take action after the judicial hearing. In addition, the Supreme Court held that the mere existence of
law is not enough, such law must be just, fair and reasonable. Finally, it was
held that the term as noted in Article 21 “Procedure established by law is a synonym to “Due process of law”.











References