1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Project Submitted Under the Supervision of

Dr. Neha Goyal

BM Law College

Submitted By:

Akansha Singh
Semester V

BM Law College, Jodhpur

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 2

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

MANEKA GANDHI …PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

STATEMENTS OF FACTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-8

STATEMENTS OF ISSUE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 – 11

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 – 15

PRAYER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Govt. Government
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e., That is
No. Number
U/S Under Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
S./Sec. Section
V. Versus
Vol. Volume
Art. Article

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

A. TABLE OF CASES
S. Name of the cases and case citation
No.
1. Satwant Singh vs. Assistant Passport Officer,
Government of India
2. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam
3. Kharak Singh v. the State of U. P.
4. A.K. Gopalan Case
5. The Collector vs. K. Krishnaveni

B. BOOK
1. An Introduction to Administrative Law – Dr. K. C.
Joshi

C. DATABASE REFFERED
1. www.indiankanoon

2. www.legalservicesindia

3. https://lawcirca.com/

4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROCHED THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA UNDER ART. 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of
the present case are summarised as follows:

1. That the petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist who was about to
travel to another country for some of her official business.

2. That because of this purpose, it was applied for the passport by the petitioner
under the Indian Passports Act of 1967.

3. That later, on June 1, 1976, her passport was released.

4. That thereafter, on July 4, 1977 a letter was received by the petitioner from
the regional passport officer informing that the passport of the petitioner was
confiscated, by the decision of the Government of India, under Section 10(3)
of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 on the grounds of “Public Interest”.

5. That within seven days of receiving her passport, the applicant was forced to
surrender it.

6. That Maneka Gandhi wrote a letter to the regional passport officer right
away, demanding a copy of the statement about the reason for the order, as
required by section 10 of the Constitution.

7. That on the 6th of July 1977, the government of India’s ministry of external
affairs responded, saying that the government had agreed not to provide her
with a copy of the statement of reasons for the order “in the interest of the
general public.”

8. That as a result of it, the action of impounding of passport by the

government as well as for not providing any explanation for the same has
been challenged through a writ petition which has been filed by Maneka
Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 8

9. That furthermore, it has been claimed that Section 10(3)(c) is

unconstitutional in nature as it infringes the fundamental right provided
under Article 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution.

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Is it true that Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional, and what

is the scope of such Fundamental Rights as granted to people by the
Indian Constitution?
2. Whether the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ covered under the umbrella of
Article 21?
3. What is the relationship between the rights granted by India’s
Constitution Articles 14, 19, and 21?
4. What is the scope of the phrase “procedure defined by law”?
5. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 a violation of
Fundamental Rights, and if so, is such legislation a concrete Law?
6. Whether the challenged order of the Regional Passport Officer in
violation of natural justice principles?

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

1. Is it true that Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional, and what

is the scope of such Fundamental Rights as granted to people by the
Indian Constitution?

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 10

Fundamental rights are not absolute rights. They have reasonable restrictions,
which means they are subject to the conditions of state security, public morality
and decency and friendly relations with foreign countries. They are justiciable,
implying they are enforceable by courts.

2. Whether the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ covered under the umbrella of

Article 21?
The “Right to Travel Abroad” is a subset of the ‘Right to Personal Liberty,’ and
no citizen can be denied this right unless he or she follows the legal procedure.
Furthermore, the Passports Act of 1967 makes no provision for the confiscation,
revocation, or impoundment of a passport’s holder. As a result, it is irrational
and arbitrary.

3. What is the relationship between the rights granted by India’s

Constitution Articles 14, 19, and 21?
The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be read together and aren't
mutually exclusive. Only a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation
will lead to the observance of principles of natural justice and the true spirit of
constitutionalism.

4. What is the scope of the phrase “procedure defined by law”?

India might not have adopted the American concept of the "due process of law",
nevertheless, the procedure established by law should be fair and just,
reasonable, and not be arbitrary.

5. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 a violation of

Fundamental Rights, and if so, is such legislation a concrete Law?
The Passports Act of 1967 is ultra-virus because it violates the right to life and
liberty. Because of a clause in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act of 1967, the complainant
was prohibited from traveling abroad.

6. Whether the challenged order of the Regional Passport Officer in

violation of natural justice principles?
An essential constituent of Natural Justice is “Audi Alteram Partem” i.e., given
a chance to be heard, was not granted to the petitioner.

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 11

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE

1. Is it true that Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional, and what

is the scope of such Fundamental Rights as granted to people by the
Indian Constitution?

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 12

Fundamental rights are not absolute rights. They have reasonable restrictions,
which means they are subject to the conditions of state security, public morality
and decency and friendly relations with foreign countries. They are justiciable,
implying they are enforceable by courts.
While the Fundamental Rights are an integral part of the Constitution, it would
be incorrect to term them as unconditional. These rights, by the Constitution
itself, are restricted by conditions which aim to balance the individual freedom
and rights to the necessity of public good and welfare.

2. Whether the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ covered under the umbrella of

Article 21?
The “Right to Travel Abroad” is a subset of the ‘Right to Personal Liberty,’ and
no citizen can be denied this right unless he or she follows the legal procedure.
Furthermore, the Passports Act of 1967 makes no provision for the confiscation,
revocation, or impoundment of a passport’s holder. As a result, it is irrational
and arbitrary.
Through the administrative order that seized the passport on 4th July 1977, the
State has infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights of freedom of
speech & expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to travel abroad and
the right to freedom of movement.

Satwant Singh vs. Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India1:

The right to travel abroad is well within the scope of Article 21 in this case, and
it was held that a passport cannot be refused or impounded in the absence of a
law adequately governing it. As a result, the Passports Act of 1967 was passed
by Parliament to regulate how passports were issued, rejected, impounded,
and/or revoked—issues on which there was no detailed legislation previously.

In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam the SC stated that:

Personal liberty in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and travel
abroad. Hence, no person can be deprived of such rights, except through
procedures established by law. Since the State had not made any law regarding
the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a case, the
confiscation of the petitioner's passport is in violation of Article 21 and its
grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of Article 14.
1
AIR 1967 SC 1836

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 13

3. What is the relationship between the rights granted by India’s

Constitution Articles 14, 19, and 21?
The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be read together and aren't
mutually exclusive. Only a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation
will lead to the observance of principles of natural justice and the true spirit of
constitutionalism.
Fundamental rights are entitled to every citizen by virtue of being a human and
is guaranteed against being exploited by the state. Hence, these fundamental
rights should be wide-ranged and comprehensive to provide optimum
protection.
To have a well-ordered and civilized society, the freedom guaranteed to its
citizens must be in regulated form and therefore, reasonable restrictions were
provided by the constitutional assembly from clauses (2) to (6) in Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. But, the laid restrictions do not provide any ground to
be executed in this case.
Article 22 confers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. In this
case, the government by confiscating the passport of the petitioner without
providing her any reasons for doing so has illegally detained her within the
country.
Article 14: This Article is present in part 3 of the Constitution of India dealing
with fundamental rights and provides us the right of “Equality before Law”.
According to this Article within India’s jurisdiction, the state shall not deny
anybody equality before the law or equal protection under the law.
Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth is
prohibited.2
Article 19: This Article deals with “Protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.” This article provides us the freedom of speech and
expression as well as the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of
India. 3
Article 21: This Article states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”  4
In Kharak Singh v. the State of U. P., it was held that the term “personal
liberty” is used in the constitution as a compendium including all the varieties
2
Constitution of India, Article 14
3
Constitution of India, Article, 19
4
Constitution of India, Article, 21

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 14

of rights in relation to personal liberty whether or not included in several

clauses of Article 19(1).
4. What is the scope of the phrase “procedure defined by law”?
India might not have adopted the American concept of the "due process of law",
nevertheless, the procedure established by law should be fair and just,
reasonable, and not be arbitrary.

5. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 a violation of

Fundamental Rights, and if so, is such legislation a concrete Law?
 The Passports Act of 1967 is ultra-virus because it violates the right to life and
liberty. Because of a clause in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act of 1967, the
complainant was prohibited from traveling abroad.

Indian Passport Act, 1967:

It was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 1967. It deals with travel issues,
passport papers, and the departure of Indian citizens from the country.

Section 10(3): This provision states that the government may impound or

revoke a passport or travel document if the passport authority deems it
appropriate in the interests of the country in any way possible, as specified in
this provision.5

Section 10(5): This section stipulates that whenever a passport authority makes

an order under subsection 1 for changing or canceling approvals, or under
subsection 3 for canceling a passport or travel permit, it must draft a statement
of reason and produce it to the individual concerned on request unless it is in the
country’s concern.6

Therefore, the government of India had not given the copy of statement of
reason for confiscating the passport which is not according to this section.

6. Whether the challenged order of the Regional Passport Officer in

violation of natural justice principles?
An essential constituent of Natural Justice is “Audi Alteram Partem” i.e., given
a chance to be heard, was not granted to the petitioner.

5
Indian Passports Act, 1967, Section 10(3)
6
Indian Passports Act, 1967, Section 10(5)

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 15

Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is invariably

acknowledged as a vital component of the principles of natural justice. Even if
these principles of natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the
provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of Fundamental Rights
embodies the very crux of these principles.

Principle of Natural Justice:

“The principles of natural justice constitute the basic elements of fair hearing,
having their roots in the innate sense of fair play and justice which is not
perverse of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men”7

Concept of Audi Alterm Partem:

It’s a Latin term that translates to “listen to the other side.” This theorem holds
that no one should be judged without even being given a fair hearing. Natural
justice is upheld by this principle.8

A.K. Gopalan Case9:

This was the first time the term “personal liberty” was used. Under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution, the petition questioned the constitutional validity of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The key point of contention was the definition
of the term “legal procedure,” specifically whether such procedures may be
arbitrary or unfair, or whether they must always be just, logical, and fair.
However, the majority bench, dismissing the petitioner’s claims, held that the
word law under Article 21 isn’t always in accordance with natural justice
principles.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issue raised, arguments advanced and
authority citied, the Counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly pray for this
Hon’ble Courts that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

7
The Collector vs. K. Krishnaveni, W.A 1995 of 2018
8
A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
9
A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner

 16

- section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 should be made void because it

violates Article 14 of Indian constitution;
- the confiscation of the petitioner's passport should come under violation
of Article 21 and its grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also
violative of Article 14;
- Right to Travel Abroad should come under the ambit of Personal liberty,
which includes the right of locomotion and travel abroad. Hence, no
person can be deprived of such rights, except through procedures
established by law;
Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit on the light of equity, justice
and good conscience and for this Act of kindness or your Lordships of the
Respondent shall as duty bound ever pray.

Memorandum on behalf of the Petitioner