Author: Aishwarya Sinha, Amity Law School, Patna
CASE HISTORY
The petitioner ( Maneka Gandhi), a well known Journalist, was issued a passport on June, 1976 under the Passport Act, 1967. On the 4th of July 1977, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi intimating to her that it was decided by the Government of India to impound her passport u/s 10(3) (c) of the Act “ in public interest” .The petitioner immediately requested the Regional Passport Authority through a letter to furnish the statement of reasons for making such order. The Govt. of India , Ministry of External Affairs replied that the Government decided “ in the interest of the general public” not to furnish statement of reasons.
The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition u/a 32 challenging action of the Government against impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so as the violation of her fundamental rights; specifically Article 14 ( Right to Equality), Article 19 ( Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression ) and Article 21 ( Right to Life and Liberty ) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Important details of Case:
Petitioner : Maneka Gandhi
Respondent: Union of India and others
Date of Judgement : January 25 ,1978
Bench: Before M.H.Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwali, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. And P.S Kailasam
Issues before the Court:
Whether the fundamental rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of the territory of such fundamental rights.
Whether right to travel abroad is protected under the umbrella of article 21.
Determining the scope of procedure established by law.
Whether the provision laid down in section 10(3) ( c) of the passport act, 1967 is violative of fundamental rights and if it is, whether such legislation is a concrete law?
Whether the impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of natural justice?
Judgement
The key features of this landmark judgement are as follows:
1. Before the enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport related affairs. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v D. Ramarathnam, the SC stated that “ Personal Liberty” in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and travel abroad. As such, no person can be deprived of such rights, except through procedures established by law. Hence, in this case the impounding of the petitioner’s passport is in violation of Art.21and its grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of Art. 14.
2. Further, clause ( c) of sec. 10(3) of the passport Act 1967 provides that in case of impounding a passport, the authority is required to furnish a statement of reasons to holder on demand for such an act which was not complied with in this case.
3. The fundamental Rights conferred in Part III of the constitution are not distinctive nor mutually exclusive. Any law depriving a person of his personal Liberty has to stand a test of one or more of the fundamental Rights conferred under Art.19. When referring to Art.14, “Ex- hypothesi” must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be projected in the procedure.
4. The term used in Art.21 is “ Procedure established by law” instead of “due process of law” which is said to have procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
5. There is a clear violation of the basic principles of natural justice i.e., Audi Alteram Partem and it cannot be claimed as fair and just even if a statute is silent on it.
6. Sec.10( 3) ( c) of the Passport Act 1967 is not violative of any Fundamental Rights , particularly Art.14. In the present case, the petitioner is not discriminated in any manner under Art.14 because the statute provided unrestricted powers to the authorities.
7. Violation of Fundamental Rights by state does not mean that Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is exercisable only in India and not outside.
8. The Right to Travel Abroad is not a Right to Free Speech and Expression as both have different natures and characters.
9. Further, ruling of A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras was overruled stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Art.14,19 and 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in the Gopalan case, the majority held that these provisions in itself are mutually exclusive.
Judgement Analysis: This judgement has become a landmark in history as it not only overruled A. K. Gopalan decision’s but also broadened the scope of Fundamental Rights which was appreciated nationwide. However, the Court refrained itself from passing any formal order on the case, but the views and comments expressed by judges on various issues while disposing the case were proved to be very significant in terms of Fundamental Rights with the passage of time.
The greatest feature of this judgement was to establish interlink between the provisions of Articles 14,19 & 21. By the virtue of this link , the court made these provisions inseparable and a single entity. Now any procedure to be valid has to meet the requirements mentioned under Articles 14,19 & 21. Thus, it expanded the scope of personal liberty exponentially and protected the Fundamental Right to Life to a great extent.
All Judges of the bench highly criticized the contention of Respondent that any law is valid and legal until it is repealed and the procedure established by law need not necessarily be just, fair and reasonable. They emphasized the test of reasonableness and rationality instead of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The court gave the Right to Life and Personal Liberty a new expansive and liberal interpretation.
In the said judgement, the court was of the view that though the phrase used in Art. 21 is “Procedure established by Law” instead of “ due process of law” . However the procedure must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality. The procedure established by law must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being reasonable and just. In any way it cannot be arbitrary depriving the citizens of their Fundamental Rights. Virtually, the court, by this decision also managed to respect and protect the sanctity of the constitution makers.
The court also rested the debate forever by holding that each Fundamental Rights are not distinct from each other . On the other words, they are mutually dependent upon each other. In this regard, Justice Iyer has very well opined that no Article in the constitution is an Island in itself. Justice Bhagwati, J held that the procedural Law has to meet the requirements of Articles 14 & 19 to be a valid law under Art.21.
The bench has provided a liberal interpretation of Fundamental Rights. In this way, the court had set a benchmark for future generation to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III of the constitution.
The effects of this landmark judgement can be widely seen in different case interpreted by courts to establish socio- economic and cultural right under the umbrella of Art. 21 such as Right to Clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment etc. as a part of Right to Life & Personal Liberty.
The judgement opened new dimensions in the Judicial Activism and PIL’s were largely appreciated and judges took interests in liberal interpretation wherever it was needed to prevail justice.
The judges mandated that any law which deprives a person of his personal liberty should stand the test of Art.21, 14 as well as 19 of the constitution. They also emphasized upon the principles of Natural Justice implicit under Art.21 and mandated that no person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court.
The court held that Constitution makers were never of the mind that the procedure need not necessarily be reasonable, just and fair. They drafted this constitution for the protection of the ‘ People of India’ and such interpretation of Art.21 will be counter-productive to the protection offered by the constitution.
This judgement at one hand saved the citizens from unfair and unjust actions of Executives. On the other hand, It also saved the sanctity of Parliamentary Law when it did not strike down sec 10(3) ( c) and 10 (5) of 1967 Act. The court is commendable in holding that these sections are administrative order and therefore open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi of the Case: Ratio Decidendi is commonly known as the reasons for the judgement. It basically refers to the material part of the judgement without which the judge would not be able to arrive at the present conclusion of the case.
The Ratio Decidendi in the judgement of Maneka Gandhi’s Case are as follows:
1. Section 10(3) ( c) of the Passport Act is violative of Art.14 of the Indian Constitution : Art.14 of the Constitution provides Equality before Law. This provision is absolutely against the arbitrariness or vagueness of any sort as far as the actions of Executives are concerned. Sec.10(3) (c ) of the Passports Act confers unlimited powers on the Passport Authorities. Thus , there is no uniformity or reasonableness in the actions of the Passport Authorities and their actions could differ from case to case. The judgement in E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) was applied by the Supreme Court to further justify their views. It was held in this case that Art.14 is one of the pillars of the constitution and it should be given the widest interpretation possible including reasonableness and arbitrariness of certain provisions of the legislations.
Based on these observations, the court held Sec.10(3) (c ) of the Passports Act violative of Art.14 of the constitution.
2.The Audi Alteram Partem Rule : The real meaning of Audi Alteram Partem is “ hear the other side”. It is the basic principle of Natural Justice which plays key role to justify fairness and justness of legal procedure. Its ultimate aim is that both the sides should be given the opportunity to present their case before the final judgement.
As obvious in the present case that Maneka Gandhi was denied reasons for impounding of her passport. It was unfair because every person has the right to know the grounds on which any executive action is being taken against his/her. Further, she was never given a chance to present her own case before the authorities. As such, basic principle of Natural Justice was not followed in present case.
Even the Passport Authorities accepted during the proceedings that they had been wrong in not providing Smt. Maneka Gandhi a chance to present her case before the authorities. What is most significant is that they not only held wrong in the first place but also exposed when they accepted to let her present her case only with a view to mitigate the blame.
Thus, they were definitely on the wrong footing and the court had held that their action had been arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
3.Section 10(3) ( c) not violative of Freedom of Speech and Expression as well as Freedom of Trade and Profession: Smt. Maneka Gandhi had alleged that the order to impound her passport also violated her rights of Freedom of Speech and Expression u/a 19(1) (a) as well as Freedom of Trade and Profession u/a 19(1) (g) of the constitution. She alleged that the freedom of speech and expression also includes in its ambit to Right to Travel Abroad to express and exchange ideas with the people of other nations. The act of confiscating her passport deprived her of said right.
The same way, she said that she being a journalist, it was part of her profession to travel to different parts of the world to cover news issues. Thus, by denying her the opportunity to travel abroad , the passport authorities had violated her right of Trade and Profession.
However the court acknowledged that the above mentioned contentions were correct but further pointed out that there was nothing to prove that Mrs. Gandhi had some earnest need to travel abroad towards realization of her right of expression u/a 19(1) . Thus , this argument was rejected and the order was not held to be violative of Art. 19(1) (a) and 19(1) (g).
4. The order is violative of Art.21of the Indian Constitution: In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v D. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court held that the expression “ Personal Liberty” in Art.21 also includes in its ambit the right of locomotion and travel abroad , and u/a 21 no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to the “ Procedure Established by Law” . This judgement made basis for enactment of the Passports Act, 1967.
Keeping in mind this right, Smt. Gandhi contended that her right to travel abroad had been violated by the passport authorities as the procedure established by law was not followed at all in her case. Moreover, the procedure adopted in her case was arbitrary and unfair as she was denied the statement of reasons for impounding of her passport. Thus, it was also violative of her Fundamental Rights i.e., the right to travel abroad u/a 21 without being given valid reasons for the same.
The procedural discrepancy was admitted by the attorney of the government. The court held that though her fundamental right had been violated but it was in the interest of general public. The most significant aspect of this judgement is that the court has adopted a liberal interpretation of Art.21 in this case and expanded its ambit.
Summary
This is one of the most significant judgements delivered by court because it witnessed far reaching consequences in several aspects of Fundamental Rights in the days to come. It helped broaden the horizons of the Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution Articles 14, 19 & 21. This judgement laid down the basis for a claim of several rights relating to “ Personal Liberty” under Art.21. This case , while adding a whole new dimension to the concept of ‘ personal liberty’, extended the protection of Art. 14 to the personal liberty of every person and additional protection of Art.19 to the personal liberty of every citizen. Above all, it gave paramount importance to the feelings and intentions of Constitution makers.
Submitted by
