Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

51. Before we examine the rival arguments urged on behalf of the parties in regard to the various questions arising in this petition, it would be convenient, to set out the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. This Act was enacted on 24th June, 1967 in view of the decision of this Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer. Government of India, New Delhi and Ors. The position which obtained prior to the coming into force of this Act was that there was no law regulating the issue of passports for leaving the shores of India and going abroad. The issue of passports was entirely within the discretion of the executive and this discretion, was unguided and unchannelled. This Court, by a majority, held that the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion and travel abroad and under Article 21 no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to the procedure established by law and since no law had been made by the State regulating or prohibiting the exercise of such right, the refusal of passport was in violation of Article 21 and moreover the discretion with the executive in the matter of issuing or refusing passport being unchannelled and arbitrary, it was plainly violative of Article 14 and hence the order refusing passport to the petitioner was also invalid under that Article. This decision was accepted by Parliament and the infirmity pointed out by it was set right by the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967. This Act, as its preamble shows, was enacted to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for incidental and ancillary matters. Section 3 provides that no person shall depart from or attempt to depart from India unless he holds in this behalf a. valid passport or travel document. What are the different classes of passports and travel documents which can be issued under the Act is laid down in Section 4. Section 5, Sub-section (1) provides for making of an application for issue of a passport or travel document or for endorsement on such passport or travel document for visiting foreign country or countries and Sub-section (2) says that on receipt of such application, the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, by order in writing, issue of refuse to issue the passport or travel document or make or refuse to make on the passport or travel document endorsement in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application. Sub-section (3) requires the passport authority, where it refuses to issue the passport or travel document or to make any endorsement on the passport of travel document, to record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order. Section 6, Sub-section (i) lays down the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country and provides that on no other ground the endorsement shall be "refused. There are four grounds set out. in this sub-section and of them, the last is that, in the opinion of '-the Central Government, the presence of the applicant in such foreign country is not in the public interest. Similarly Sub-section (2) of Section 6 specifies the grounds on which alone and on no other grounds the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country and amongst various grounds set out there, the last is that, in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of passport or travel, document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. Then we come to Section 10 which is the material section which falls for consideration. Sub-section (1) of that section empowers the passport authority to vary or cancel the endorsement of a passport or travel document or to vary or cancel the conditions subject to which a passport or travel document has been issued, having regard, inter alia, to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 or any notification under Section 19, Sub-section (2) confers powers on the passport authority to vary or cancel the conditions of the passport or travel document on application of the holder of the passport or travel document and with the previous approval of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) provides that the passport authority may impound or cause to tie impounded or revoke a passport or travel document on the grounds set out in Clauses (a) to (h). The order impounding the passport in the present case was made by the Central Government under Clause (c) which reads as follows :-

21. No person shall be deprived of his fife or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 22 confers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and provides inter alia safeguards in case of preventive detention. The other fundamental rights are not relevant to the present discussion and we need not refer to them.

54. It is obvious that Article 21, though couched in negative language, confers the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. So Far as the right to personal liberty is concerned, it is ensured by providing that no one shall be deprived of personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. The first question that arises for consideration on the language of Article 21 is : what is the meaning and content of the words 'personal liberty' as used in this article? This question incidently came up for discussion in some of the judgments in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950] S.C.R. 88 and the observations made by Patanjali Sastri, J., Mukherjee, J., and S. R. Das, J., seemed to place a narrow interpretation on the words 'personal liberty' so as to confine the protection of Article 21 to freedom, of the person against unlawful detention. But there was no definite pronouncement made on this point since the question before the Court was not so much the interpretation of the words 'personal liberty' as the inter-relation between Article 19 and 21. It was in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. that the question as to the proper scope and meaning of the expression 'personal liberty' came up pointedly for consideration for the first time before this Court. The majority of the Judges took the view "that 'personal liberty' is used in the article as a compendious term, to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go' to make up the 'personal liberties' of man other than those- dealt with in the several clauses of Article 19(1). In other words, while Article 19(1) deals with particular species or attributes, of that freedom, 'personal liberty' in Article 21 takes in and comprises the residue". The minority judges, however, disagreed with this view taken by the majority and explained their position in the following words : "No doubt the expression 'personal liberty' is a comprehensive one and the right to move freely is an attribute of personal liberty. It is said that the freedom to move freely is carved out of personal liberty and, therefore, the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 excludes that attribute. In our view, this is not a correct approach. Both are independent fundamental rights, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another. The fundamental, right of life and personal liberty bas many attributes and some of them are found in Article 19. If a person's fundamental right under Article 21 is infringed, the State can rely upon a law to sustain the action, but that cannot be a complete answer unless the said law satisfies the test laid down in Article 19(2) so far as the attributes covered by Article 39(1) are concerned". There can be no doubt that in view of the decision of this Court in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India [1973] 3 S.C.R. 530 the minority view must be regarded as correct and the majority view must be held to have been overruled- We shall have occasion to analyse and discuss the decision in R. C. Cooper's case a little later when we deal with the arguments based on infraction of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), but it is sufficient to state for the present that according to this decision, which was a decision given by the full Court, the fundamental rights conferred by Part III are not distinct and mutually exclusive rights. Each freedom has different dimensions and merely because the limits of interference with one freedom are satisfied, the Jaw is not freed from the necessity to meet the. challenge of another guaranteed freedom. The decision in A. K. Gopalan's {supra) case gave rise to the theory that the freedoms under Articles 19, 21, 22 and 31 are exclusive--each article enacting a code relating to the protection of distinct rights, but this theory was over-turned in R. C. Cooper's case (supra) where Shah, I., speaking-on behalf of the majority pointed out that "Part III of the Constitution weaves a pattern of guarantees on the texture of basic human rights. The guarantees delimit the protection of those rights in their allotted fields : they do not attempt to enunciate- distinct rights." The conclusion was summarised in these terms : "In our judgment, the assumption in A. K. Gopalan's case that certain articles in the Constitution exclusively deal with specific matters cannot be accepted as correct". It was held in R. C. Cooper's case and that is clear from the judgment of Shah, J., because Shah, J., in so many terms disapproved of the contrary states merit of law contained in the opinions of Kama, C.J., Patanjali Sastri, J., Mahajan, J., Mukherjee, J., and S. R. Das, J., in A. K. Gopalan's case that even where a person is detained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, as mandated by Article 21, the protection conferred by the various clauses of Article 19(1) does not cease to be available to him and the law authorising such detention has to satisfy the test of the applicable freedom under Article 19, Clause (1). This would clearly show that Articles 19(1) and 21 are not mutually exclusive, for, if they were, there would be no question of a law depriving a person of personal liberty within the meaning of Article 21 having to meet the challenge of a fundamental right under Article 19(1). Indeed, in that event, a law of preventive detention which deprives a person of 'personal liberty' in the narrowest sense, namely, freedom from detention and thus falls indisputably within Article 21 would not require to be tested on the touchstone of Clause (d) of Article 19(1) and yet it was held by a Bench of seven Judges, of this Court in Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. that such a law would have to satisfy the requirement inter alia of Article 19(1), Clause (d) and in Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , which was a decision given by a Bench of five judges, this Court considered the challenge of Clause (d) of Article 19(f) to the constitutional validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and held that that Act did not violate the constitutional guarantee embodied in that article. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle we can refuse to give its plain natural meaning to the expression 'personal liberty' as used in Article 21 and read it in a narrow and restricted sense so as to exclude those attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in Article 19. We do not think that this would be a correct way of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution conferring fundamental rights. The attempt of the court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights rather than attenuate their meaning and content by a process of judicial construction. The wave length for comprehending the scope and ambit of the fundamental rights has been set by this Court in R. C. Cooper's case and our approach in the interpretation of the fundamental rights must now be in tune with this wave length. We may point out even at the cost of repetition that this Court has said in so many terms in R. C Cooper's case that each freedom has (different dimensions and there may be overlapping between different fundamental rights and therefore it is not a valid argument to say that the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 must be so interpreted as to' avoid overlapping between that article and Article 19(1). The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19, Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case that 'personal liberty' within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article' 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one. It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means 'enacted law' or 'State Law'. Vide A. K. Gopalan's case. Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. There was some discussion in A. K. Gopalan's case in regard to the nature of the procedure required to be prescribed under Article 21 and at least three of the learned Judges out of five expressed themselves strongly in favour of the view that the procedure cannot be any arbitrary, fantastic or oppressive procedure. Fazal Ali, J., who was in a minority, went to the farthest limit in saying that the procedure must include the four essentials set out in Prof. Willi's book on Constitutional Law, namely, notice, opportunity to be heard, impartial tribunal and ordinary course of procedure. Patanjali Sastri, J. did not go as far as that but he did say that "certain basic principles emerged as the constant factors known to all those procedures and they formed the core of the procedure established by law." Mahajan, J., also observed that Article 21 requires that "there should be some form of proceeding before a person can be condemned either in respect of his life or his liberty" and "it negatives the idea of fantastic, arbitrary and oppressive forms of proceedings". But apart altogether from these observations in A. K. Gopalan's case, which have great weight, we find that even on principle the concept of reasonableness must be projected in the procedure contemplated by Article 21, having regard to the impact of Article 14 on Article 21.

81. The petitioner, however, placed very strong reliance on certain decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The first was the decision in Kent v. Dulles (supra). The Supreme Court laid down in this case that the right to travel is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and held that the denial of passport by the Secretary of State was invalid because the Congress had not, under the Passport Act, 1926, authorised the Secretary of State to refuse passport on the ground of association with the communist party and refusal to file an affidavit relating to that affiliation and such legislation was necessary before the Secretary of State could refuse passport on those grounds. This decision was not concerned with the validity of any legislation regulating issue of passports nor did it recognise the right to travel as founded on the first Amendment which protects freedom of speech, petition and assembly. We fail to see how this decision can be of any. help to the petitioner.

Constitutional requirement of an order under Section 10(3)(c).

86. But that does not mean that an order made under Section 10(3)(c) may not violate Article 19(1)(a) or (g). While discussing the constitutional validity of the impugned order impounding the passport of the petitioner, we shall have occasion to point out that even where a statutory provision empowering an authority to take action is constitutionally valid, action taken under it may offend a fundamental right and in that event, though the statutory provision is valid, the action may be void. Therefore, even though Section 10(3)(c) is valid, the question would always remain whether an order made under it is invalid as contravening a fundamental right. The direct and inevitable effect of an order impounding a passport may, in a given case, be to abridge or take away freedom of speech and expression or the right td carry on a profession and where such is the case, the order would be invalid, unless saved by Article 19(2) or Article 19(6). Take for example, a pilot with international flying licence. International flying is his profession and if his passport is impounded, it would directly interfere with his right to carry on his profession and unless the order can be justified on the ground of public interest under Article 19(6) it would be void as offending Article 19(1)(g). Another example may be taken of an evangelist who has made it a mission of his life to preach his faith to people all over the world and for that purpose, set up institutions in different countries. If an order is made impounding his passport, it would directly affect his freedom of speech and expression and the challenge to the validity of the order under Article 19(1)(a) would be unanswerable unless it is saved by Article 19(2). We have taken these two examples only by way of illustration. There may be many such cases where the restriction imposed is apparently only on the right to go abroad but the direct and inevitable consequence is to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression or the right to carry on a profession. A musician may want to go abroad to sing, a dancer to dance, a visiting professor to teach and a scholar to participate in a conference or seminar. If in such a case his passport is denied or impounded, it would directly interfere with his freedom of speech and expression. If a correspondent of a newspaper is given a foreign assignment and he is refused passport or his passport is impounded, it would be direct interference with his freedom to carry on his profession. Examples can be multiplied, but the point of the matter is that though the right to go abroad is not a fundamental right, the denial of the right to go abroad may, in truth and in effect, restrict freedom of speech and expression or freedom to carry on a profession so as to contravene Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g). In such a case, refusal or impounding of passport would be invalid unless it is justified under Article 19(2) or Article 19(6), as the case may be. Now, passport can be impounded under Section 10(3)(c) if the Passport Authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public. The first three categories are the same as those in Article 19(a) and each of them, though separately mentioned, is a species within the. broad genus of "interests of the general public". The expression, "interests of the general public" is a wide expression which covers within its broad sweep all kinds of interests of the general public including interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of India and friendly relations of India with foreign States. Therefore, when an order is made under Section 10(3)(c), which is in conformity with the terms of that provision, it would be in the interests of the general public and even if it restricts freedom to carry on a profession, it would be protected by Article 19(6). But if an order made under Section 10(3)(c) restricts freedom of speech and expression, it would not be enough that it is made in the interests of the general public. It must fall within the terms of Article 19(2) in order to earn the protection of that Article. If it is made in the interests of the sovereignty, and integrity of India or in the interests of the security of India or in the 'interests of friendly relations of India with any foreign country, it would satisfy the requirement of Article 19(2). But if it is made for any other interests of the general public save the interests of "public order, decency or morality", it would not enjoy the protection of Article 19(2). There can be no doubt that the interests of public order, decency or morality are "interests of the general public" and they would be covered by Section 10(3)(c), but the expression "interests of the general public" is, as already pointed out, a much wider expression and, therefore, in order that an order made under Section 10(3)(c) restricting freedom of speech and expression, may not fall foul of Article 19(1)(a), 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).