Case Analysis

Case: Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

Topic: Indian Passport Act 1967

 Brief Facts of the case: Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the
Passport Act 1967. The regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977
addressed to Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under
section 10(3)(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the
letter.She immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in
return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India,
Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general
public.Later, a writ petition was filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution
in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Issues Raised :

1. Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

2.Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before

depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.

3.Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21of
the constitution.

4.Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the
principle of natural justice.

Judgement: It was held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act confers vague and
undefined power on the passport authorities, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
since it doesn’t provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also
held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word “procedure” as mentioned in
the clause, and the present procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court,
however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter, and ruled that the passport
would remain with the authorities till they deem fit.
Observations: The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new and highly varied
interpretation to the meaning of ‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and expression to the effect
that the right is no longer restricted by the territorial boundaries of the country. In fact, it
extends to almost the entire world. Thus the case saw a high degree of judicial activism, and
ushered in a new era of expanding horizons of fundamental rights in general, and Article 21
in particular.