1978 (1) TMI 161 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Right to Travel Abroad Protected as Personal Liberty under Article 21

MANEKA GANDHI Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope of 'personal liberty' under Article 21, emphasizing protection against ... Whether public interest will or will not be served by a particular order to be passed under a valid law subject, as it always is, to judicial supervision - Held that:- Petitioner is not entitled to any of the fundamental rights enumerated-in Article 19 of the Constitution and that the Passport Act complies with the requirements of Art. 21 of the Constitution and is in accordance with the procedure established by law. I construe section 10(3)(c) as providing a right to the holder of the passport to be heard before the passport authority and that any order passed under section 10(3) is subject to a limited judicial scrutiny by the, High Court and the Supreme Court. Issues Involved:1. Whether the right to travel abroad is part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21.2. Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 includes principles of natural justice.3. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.4. Whether the impugned order of impounding the passport is valid under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Right to Travel Abroad as Part of 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21:The Court affirmed that the right to travel abroad is included within the ambit of 'personal liberty' under Article 21. It was held that 'personal liberty' encompasses a variety of rights, including the right to travel abroad, as established in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. The Court emphasized that Article 21 protects against executive encroachment over personal liberty, and any deprivation of this right must be according to the procedure established by law.2. Procedure Established by Law and Principles of Natural Justice:The Court concluded that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This includes adherence to principles of natural justice, such as the right to be heard. The Court cited A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, and emphasized that procedural fairness is essential for any law that affects personal liberty. The Court also noted that the right to be heard is implicit in the Passports Act, and any order impounding a passport must be made quasi-judicially, ensuring procedural propriety.3. Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 by Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act:The Court held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act is not violative of Article 14, as the power conferred on the Passport Authority is not unguided or unfettered. The Court found that the expression 'in the interests of the general public' provides sufficient guidelines. However, the Court emphasized that any order under Section 10(3)(c) must also satisfy the requirements of Articles 19 and 21. The Court stated that the right to travel abroad, while not explicitly mentioned in Article 19, could affect the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) if the restriction imposed is unreasonable.4. Validity of the Impugned Order under Section 10(3)(c):The Court found that the impugned order of impounding the passport was not procedurally proper, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that even if the Passport Authority has discretionary power, it must be exercised reasonably and justly, ensuring procedural safeguards. The Court noted that the reasons for impounding the passport must be disclosed unless it is against public interest, and the petitioner must be given a chance to contest the grounds for impounding.Conclusion:The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition without formally interfering with the impugned order, based on the Attorney General's statement that the petitioner would be given an opportunity to make a representation and that the impounding would not exceed six months if confirmed. The Court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in matters affecting personal liberty.