Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another

The petitioner's passport, issued in 1976, was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, by an order of July 1977 made 'in public interest'. When she asked for reasons, the Government declined to give them, stating that it was not in the interests of the general public to do so. She challenged the order under Article 32. The Government later explained in its affidavit that she was likely to be required to give evidence before a commission of inquiry.

In the leading opinion, Bhagwati J. (for himself, Untwalia and Fazal Ali JJ.) held that the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. 'Procedure established by law' does not mean any procedure a statute happens to prescribe: the procedure must be right, just and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. A law depriving a person of personal liberty must prescribe a procedure that satisfies Article 21, and must also withstand Article 19 where a freedom under that Article is affected, and Article 14, which strikes at arbitrariness. The compartmentalised reading of A.K. Gopalan was rejected.

Section 10(3)(c) was not struck down. The expression 'interests of the general public' was held not to be vague, and the rule of audi alteram partem was read into the power: the holder must ordinarily be heard, before the passport is impounded or, where urgency requires, promptly afterwards; and reasons must be recorded and furnished unless disclosure would itself harm the interests the Act protects.

Beg C.J. and Chandrachud and Krishna Iyer JJ. delivered concurring opinions; Kailasam J. delivered a separate opinion taking a narrower view of Articles 19 and 21.