1) Smt. Maneka Gandhi challenged the impounding of her passport by the government without being provided reasons under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Section 10(3)(c) was unconstitutional for granting vague powers without oversight and for not providing individuals a chance to defend themselves before decisions are made. 3) The Court established new standards for restrictions on fundamental rights and expanded the scope of Article 19 rights like free speech to apply abroad as well.

1. Smt. Maneka Gandhi
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
AIR 1978 SC 597
Satya Ranjan Swain
B.A.LL.B (3rd Sem.)
Roll No. 783023

2. The Court is here!!
Name of the parties Name of the Judges
• Petitioner : Mrs. Maneka • M.H. Beg, C.J.
Gandhi • P.N. Bhagwati
• Respondent: Union of India • Y.V. Chandrachud
(UOI) and others • V.R. Krishna Iyer
• N.L. Untwalia
• P.S. Kailasam
• S. Murtaza Fazal Ali

3. Facts
• On July,04,1977, Smt. Maneka
Gandhi, received a letter from the Regional
Passport Officer, Delhi intimating her to
surrender the passport (No. K-869668) within
seven days from the date of receipt of the
letter, as it was decided by the Government of
India to impound her passport under Section
10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967in “public
interest”..

4. Contd..
• The petitioner immediately sends a letter to
the Regional Passport Officer asking the
reasons and requesting him to provide a copy
of the ‘statement of reasons’ for making the
order.

5. • On the reply it was sent by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India, on July
6, 1977 stating that the Government has
decided to impound the passport
– quot;in the interest of the general publicquot; and
– not to hand over her a copy of the statement of
reasons.
So, the petitioner filed a petition

6. Issues
1. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates
the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates
the Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution?
3. Is Freedom of Speech and expression confined to the
territory of India ?
4. Is the right to go abroad covered by article 19(a) or (g)
of the Indian Constitution?
5. Whether the impugned order is intra vires Section
10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967?
6. Is the impugned order Constitutionally valid?

7. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates
the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
1
• Under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, the
Passport Authority impounded the passport of the
petitioner quot;in the interests of the general public.quot;
• Thus it confers unguided and unfettered
power to the Passport Authority
• It is violative of the equality clause contained
in Article 14.

8. Respondant argues..
• The words quot;in the interests of the general publicquot;
have a clearly well defined meaning.
• Section 10(3)(c) is not wider than the constitutional
provision in Article 19(5) of the Constitution.
• The Passport authority is required to record in
writing a brief statement of reasons for impounding
the passport and, save in certain exceptional
circumstances, to supply a copy of such statement to
the person affected,

9. Contd..
• The power is exercised by the Central
Government itself. So, it can safely be
assumed that the Central Government will
exercise the power in a reasonable and
responsible manner.

10. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates
the Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution?
2
• 19. (1) All citizens shall have the right—
– (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
– (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.

11. • The right, which is sought to be restricted by
Section 10(3)(c) and the order, is the right to go
abroad and that is not named as a fundamental
right.
• But the argument of the petitioner was that the
right to go abroad is an integral part of the
freedom of speech and expression and whenever
State action, be it law or executive fiat, restricts
or interferes with the right to go abroad, it
necessarily involves curtailment of freedom of
speech and expression.

12. Respondent argues..
• The right to go abroad could not possibly be
comprehended within freedom of speech and
expression, because the right of free speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) was
exercisable only within the territory of India and
the guarantee of its exercise did not extend
outside the country and hence State action
restricting or preventing exercises of the right to
go abroad could not be said to be violative of
freedom of speech and expression

13. Is Freedom of Speech and expression
confined to the territory of India ?
3
The Union of India challenged that it was the
basic propose of the Constitution that the
fundamental rights guaranteed by it were
available only within the territory of India, for
it could never have been the intention of the
constitution-makers to confer rights which the
authority of the State could not enforce.

14. Arguments of the Petitioner
• These rights were conceived by the
Constitution-makers not in a narrow limited
since but in their widest sweep, for the aim
and objective was to build a new social order
where man will not be a mere plaything in the
hands of the State or a few privileged persons
but there will be full scope and opportunity
for him to achieve the maximum development
of his personality and the dignity of the
individual will be fully assured.

15. • Could the constitution-makers have intended that a citizen
should have this freedom in India but not outside ?
• Freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to
gather information as also to speak and express oneself at
home and abroad and to exchange thoughts and ideas with
others not only in India but also outside.
• The words quot;in the territory of Indiaquot; could have been added at
the end of Article 19(1)(a). But it was deliberately refrained
from using any words of limitation.

16. • While the constitutional debate was going on, the UDHR was
adopted and most of the fundamental rights which is included
in Part III were recognised and adopted by the U N as the
inalienable rights of man in the UDHR.
• Article 13 of the UDHR declared that quot;every one has right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and import information and ideas …quot;.
• This was the glorious declaration of the fundamental
freedom of speech and expression - noble in conception and
universal in scope - which was before them when the
constitution-makers enacted Article 19(1)(a).

17. Is the right to go abroad covered by article
19(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution?
4
• The right of free speech and expression and
right to profession can have meaningful
content and its exercise can be effective only if
the right to travel abroad is ensured and
without it, the former rights would be limited
by geographical constraints and restrains.

18. Whether the impugned order is intra vires
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967?
5
The responded claims the order was
according to the stated sec. But the
petitioner claims that the order was
violating the section, because according to
the section the authority should give the
reason. But the responded hadn’t. so, ..

19. Is the impugned order Constitutionally
valid?
6
• A gross violation of the natural justice
embodied in the maxim audi alteram
partem. Therefore, null and void.

20. Contd..
• It would be entirely for the Commission of
Inquiry to decide whether her presence is
necessary or not . But the impugned order
was on the basis of a mere opinion by the
Central Government that the petitioner is
likely to be required in connection with the
proceeding before the Commission of Inquiry
was, in the circumstance, clearly unreasonable

21. It is also violative of the Art. 19(2)(6)
(The tests of validity of restrictions imposed upon
the rights covered by Article 19(1) will be found in
clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.)

22. Judgment
• (1) To the extent to which Section 10(3)(c) of the
Passports Act, 1967 authorises the passport
authority to impound a passport quot;in the interests
of the general publicquot;, it is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution since it confers vague and
undefined power on the passport authority;
• (2) Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an
arbitrary power since it does not provide for a
hearing to the holder of the passport before the
passport is impounded;

23. Contd..
• (3) Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution since it does not prescribe
'procedure' within the meaning of that article and
the procedure practised is worst.
• (4) Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be
imposed on the rights guaranteed by these
articles even though such restrictions cannot be
imposed under Articles 19(2) and 19(6).
• A new doctrine of Post decisional theory was
evolved.

24. Critical evaluation
• In this case the Hon’ble court interpreted
different Articles of the Constitution very
brilliantly. But the post decisional
doctrine, which was given in this case, I think
is not good. A person should be given the
chance of defending himself, before the
before the decision. And in this case the
petitioner should be compensated.

25. Cases referred
• State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei 1967 SC
• R. C. Cooper v. Union of India 1970 SC
• Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. 1962 SC
• A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras 1950 SC
• Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal 1974 SC
• S. N. Sarkar v. West Bengal 1973 S.C.
• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant
Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi 1967 SC
• Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. 1962 SC
• Jabalpur v. S. Shukla 1976 SC
• I. C Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 SC