Passport impounding and travel abroad rights are subject to fair procedure, natural justice, and constitutional reasonableness.
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21, so passport impounding must follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act was upheld as not arbitrary under Article 14 and not inherently inconsistent with Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g), though particular orders may still attract those freedoms if their direct effect is to curb them. An impounding order carries civil consequences and ordinarily requires disclosure of reasons and an opportunity of hearing, subject to limited urgency exceptions. The constitutional framework was upheld, but its exercise was conditioned by natural justice and reasonableness.
Issues: (i) whether the right to go abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 and whether the procedure for impounding a passport must be fair, just and reasonable; (ii) whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is void for conferring arbitrary power under Article 14 or for infringing Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g); (iii) whether an order impounding a passport under Section 10(3)(c) can stand without prior or prompt post-decisional hearing and disclosure of reasons.
Issue (i): Whether the right to go abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 and whether the procedure for impounding a passport must be fair, just and reasonable.
Analysis: The protection of life and personal liberty was held to be expansive enough to include the freedom of locomotion and the right to travel abroad. The expression "procedure established by law" was read as requiring a procedure that is not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, and the guarantee of Article 21 was linked with the discipline of natural justice and reasonableness. The Court held that the Passports Act must be construed so that the holder of a passport is afforded a fair opportunity to be heard before final deprivation of that liberty, except in situations of genuine urgency, and that the procedure under the Act must satisfy constitutional fairness.
Conclusion: Yes. The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21, and the impounding procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
Issue (ii): Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is void for conferring arbitrary power under Article 14 or for infringing Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
Analysis: The expression "in the interests of the general public" was held to furnish sufficient guidance and was not treated as vague or undefined. The Court further held that the provision, properly construed, does not by itself violate Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g) because the impugned restriction is on the right to go abroad, not on speech or profession in every case; only where the direct and inevitable effect of a particular order is to abridge those freedoms would Articles 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g) be attracted. The provision was therefore upheld, though its application remains subject to constitutional scrutiny and reading down where necessary.
Conclusion: No. Section 10(3)(c) was upheld, and it was not struck down as violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g).
Issue (iii): Whether an order impounding a passport under Section 10(3)(c) can stand without prior or prompt post-decisional hearing and disclosure of reasons.
Analysis: The power to impound a passport was treated as quasi-judicial in character, or at least as an administrative power that carries civil consequences and therefore attracts natural justice. The Court held that, save in exceptional cases of urgency or secrecy, the affected person must be given a reasonable opportunity to represent against the proposed or completed action and the reasons for the order must ordinarily be furnished. The impugned order was scrutinised on that basis, and the Government's subsequent undertaking to hear the petitioner and to limit the duration of any confirmed impounding was treated as curing the immediate procedural defect.
Conclusion: The order could not be sustained without compliance with natural justice, but the defect was treated as cured by the Government's undertaking to grant a hearing and reconsider the matter.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional framework of passport impounding was upheld, but its exercise was held to be conditioned by fairness, non-arbitrariness, disclosure of reasons in ordinary cases, and an opportunity of hearing; the immediate challenge to the impugned order did not result in formal interference because of the Government's undertaking.
Ratio Decidendi: A law depriving personal liberty must prescribe a fair, just and reasonable procedure, and an order under the passport law that entails civil consequences must ordinarily comply with natural justice and remain within the limits of constitutional reasonableness.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
