Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. It is apparent from the very nature of the power under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act that an impounding of a passport cannot be for an indefinite period. Section 10 (3) (c) was taken up for interpretation by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi. There, Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as the learned Chief Justice then was), delivering the lead judgment observed as under (SCC, pp. 313, 316):

"35. ........... it is necessary that in relation to such order, the expression "interests of the general public" in Section 10(3)(c) must be read down so as to be limited to interests of public order, decency or morality. If an order made under Section 10(3)(c) restricts freedom of speech and expression, it must be made not in the interests of the general public in a wider sense, but in the interests of public order, decency or morality, apart from the other three categories, namely, interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India and friendly relations of India with any foreign country. If the order cannot be shown to have been made in the interests of public order, decency or morality, it would not only contravene Article 19(1)(a), but would also be outside the authority conferred by Section 10(3)(c)."

(emphasis supplied)

34. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, while concurring with Justice Bhagwati in the same decision observed as under (SCC p.342):

"The impugned legislation, Sections 5, 6 and 10 especially, must be tested even under Article 21 on canons of processual justice to the people outlined above. Hearing is obligatory-- meaningful hearing, flexible and realistic, according to circumstances, but not ritualistic and wooden. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an escapee before the hearing begins. "Bolt the stables after the horse has been stolen" is not a command of natural justice. But soon after the provisional seizure, a reasonable hearing must follow, to minimise procedural prejudice. And when a prompt final order is made against the applicant or passport holder the reasons must be disclosed to him almost invariably save in those dangerous cases where irreparable injury will ensue to the State. A Government which revels in secrecy in the field of people‟s liberty not only acts against democratic decency but busies itself with its own burial. That is the writing on the wall if history were teacher, memory our mentor and decline of liberty not our unwitting endeavour. Public power must rarely hide its heart in an open society and system."