Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Quick Reply: A passport is not held at pleasure. It can be impounded only on a ground set out in s.10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable under Article 21. Reasons must be recorded under s.10(5).
Supreme Court of India · 25 January 1978 · AIR 1978 SC 597
The passport can be impounded only on certain specified grounds set out in section 10(3). The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 1978-01-25 |
| Citation | AIR 1978 SC 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621 |
| Bench | M. Hameedullah Beg CJ, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam JJ |
| Petitioner | Maneka Gandhi |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| Provisions | Constitution Articles 14, 19 and 21. Passports Act, 1967, ss.10(3) and 10(5) |
| Outcome | Constitutional requirements for impounding a passport stated. Procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. |
Holding
The Union had decided to impound the petitioner's passport under s.10(3)© of the Passports Act “in public interest” and required surrender within seven days. The Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. No person can be deprived of that liberty except according to a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable. A passport can be impounded only on a specified ground in s.10(3). The authority must apply its mind to the facts. Section 10(5) requires a brief statement of reasons in writing, save in exceptional situations.
Ratio
“The mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot ever meet the mandate of article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.”
On the Act: “The passport can be impounded only on certain specified grounds set out in section 10(3) and the Passport Authority would have to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of a given case and decide whether any of the specified grounds exists which would Justify impounding of the passport. The authority is also required by s. 10(5) to record in writing a brief statement of the reasons for making an order impounding a passport.”
This is not an RTI Act decision. It is the standing authority on holding or impounding a passport without a s.10 order and a fair hearing. An RPO that simply sits on a passport, without an order on a listed ground and without reasons, is not following the Act the Court construed.
Section(s) applied
- Constitution of India, Article 21
- Passports Act, 1967, s.10(3) and s.10(5)
- RTI is the evidence route: ask the Regional Passport Office CPIO for the file noting, the s.10 order if any, and the recorded reasons
Related
Sources
- Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978, Supreme Court of India, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ - title line as indexed. Equivalent citations printed: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Last reviewed: 11 September 2026.