Solution:The petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act, 1967. Later on July 2nd, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, had ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport by a letter posted.On being asked about the reasons for her passport confiscation, the Ministry of External Affairs declined to produce any reasons “in the interest of the general public.”
Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating the seize of her passport 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.
A great transformation in the judicial attitude towards the safeguard of personal liberty has been noticed after the horrible experiences of the infamous 1975 national emergency.
A.k. Gopalan Vs. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, are the two landmark cases which decided and expanded the horizon of rights under Art. 21. The judicial pronouncement before the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs.
Union of India (1978) were not satisfactory in providing adequate protection to the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from the legislative action.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) was a landmark judgement and played the most significant role towards the transformation of the Judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from Article 21.
Justice Krishna Iyer in this case observed that, “the spirit of man is at the root of Article 21”, “personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person” and “travel makes liberty worthwhile”.
The court finally held that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is not violative of Article 21 as it is implied in the provision that the principles of natural justice would be applicable in the exercise of the power of impounding the passport.
The defect of the order was removed and the order was passed in accordance with procedure established by law.