Back
P. S. KAILASAM, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, N. L. UNTWALIA, M. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI
Maneka Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment discusses that the impounding of a passport must meet the "procedure established by law" and require fair process, including opportunity to be heard, with exceptions in urgent cases but generally after order; reasons must be recorded and can be disclosed on demand (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the interplay of Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (life and personal liberty), holding that rights are not mutually exclusive and must be balanced; Section 10(3)(c) must satisfy both substantive and procedural constraints under these articles (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The ruling emphasizes natural justice and "fair play in action," permitting quasi-judicial treatment of passport powers and requiring reasonable, not arbitrary, decisions with safeguards such as written reasons and avenues for appeal; in certain cases, interim urgent action may precede hearing, but hearing should follow or be remedial (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It confirms that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty and that its restriction must be justified by a valid ground, with proportionality to public interests and within the scope of Article 19(2) or Article 19(6) if it affects speech or profession; extraterritorial reach is considered in light of Art. 19 and 21 interplay (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It ultimately upholds the impugned order as communicable under the Act, but with guidance on ensuring fair process and warnings about overbroad uses of "public interest" grounds; it mandates hearings and disclosure when appropriate, and directs that the passport remain in custody pending representation and a timely decision (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
M. H. BEG, C.J.I. :— The case before us involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such questions I believe that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of this Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies our not infrequently differing approaches. It should enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.
2. As I am in general agreement with my learned brethren Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, I will endeavour to confine my observations to an indication of my own approach on some matters for consideration now before us. This seems to me to be particularly necessary as my learned brother Kailasam, who has also given us the benefit of his separate opinion, has a somewhat different approach. I have had the advantage of going through the opinions of each of my three learned brethren.
3. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue, suspension or impounding, and cancellation of passports directly affect, must be included in rights to "personal liberty" on the strength of decisions of this Court giving a very wide ambit to the right to person
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
