MANEKA GANDHI versus UNION OF INDIA
Headnote
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA — ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 — PASSPORTS ACT, 1967, SECTIONS 10(3)(c), 10(5) — PERSONAL LIBERTY — RIGHT TO GO ABROAD — NATURAL JUSTICE — ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION — IMPUGNING PASSPORT — REFUSAL TO GIVE REASONS — Held: (i) The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. (ii) Article 21 is not mutually exclusive of Article 19; laws affecting personal liberty must also satisfy the tests of Article 19. (iii) The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, apply to administrative orders affecting civil rights, even if not explicitly provided in the statute. (iv) Section 10(3)(c) is not ultra vires Article 14; the phrase "in the interests of the general public" is not vague. (v) While the right to go abroad is not directly part of Article 19(1)(a) or (g), an order impounding a passport may violate these rights if its direct and inevitable consequence is to abridge them, unless saved by Article 19(2) or (6). (vi) Refusal to furnish reasons for impounding a passport, except in rare cases, violates Section 10(5) and natural justice. (vii) The impugned order was quashed due to procedural infirmities, but the government's undertaking to provide a hearing and limit the impounding period to six months was noted.
Issue
1. Whether the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21? 2. Whether Article 21 is mutually exclusive of Article 19, or must laws affecting personal liberty also satisfy Article 19? 3. Whether the principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders affecting civil rights? 4. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, is ultra vires Article 14 for vagueness? 5. Whether Section 10(3)(c) is ultra vires Article 21 for not prescribing a fair procedure? 6. Whether Section 10(3)(c) violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) by imposing impermissible restrictions? 7. Whether the impugned order impounding the passport was made in violation of natural justice and Section 10(5) of the Act? 8. Whether the grounds for impounding the passport were justified under Section 10(3)(c)?
Facts
The petitioner's passport was impounded by the Government of India under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, "in public interest". The Government initially refused to furnish the reasons for the order, citing Section 10(5). The petitioner challenged the impounding order and the refusal to provide reasons, arguing violations of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and principles of natural justice. The government later disclosed the reasons in its counter-affidavit, stating the petitioner's presence was likely required for proceedings before a Commission of Inquiry.
Holding
The Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. It further held that Article 21 is not mutually exclusive of Article 19, and laws affecting personal liberty must also satisfy the tests of Article 19. The principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders affecting civil rights. Section 10(3)(c) was found not to be ultra vires Article 14, but the refusal to provide reasons for impounding the passport violated Section 10(5) and natural justice. While the right to go abroad is not directly part of Article 19(1)(a) or (g), an order impounding a passport could violate these rights if its direct and inevitable consequence was to abridge them, unless saved by Article 19(2) or (6). The impugned order was quashed due to procedural infirmities, though the government's undertaking to provide a hearing and limit the impounding period was noted.
Disposition
allowed