In A. K. Gopalan's case (supra), what was at issue was whether the tests was valid procedure for deprivation of personal liberty by preventive detention must be found exclusively in Article 22 of the Constitutions or could we gather from outs de it also elements of any "due process of law" and use them to test the validity of a law dealing with preventive detention. Our Constitution-makers, while accepting a departure, from ordinary norms. by permitting making of laws for preventive detention without trial for special reasons in exceptional situations also provided quite elaborately, in Article 22 of the Constitution itself,' whit requirements such law, relating to preventive detention, must satisfy. The procedural requirements of such laws separately formed parts of the guaranteed fundamental rights. Therefore, when this Court was called upon to judge the validity of provisions relating to preventive detention it laid down, in Gopalan's case (supra), that the tests of "due process", with regard to such laws, are to be found in Article 22 of the Constitution, exclusively because this article constitutes a self-contained code for laws of this description. That was, in my view, the real ratio decidendi of Gopalan's case (supra). It appears to me, with great respect, that other observations relating to the separability of the subject matters of Articles 21 and 19 were mere obiter dicta. They may have appeared to the majority of learned Judges in Gopalan's case to be extensions of the logic they adopted with regard to the relationship between Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. But, the real issue there was whether, in the face of Article 22 of theConstitution, which provides all the tests of procedural validity of alaw regulating preventive detention other tests could be im- ported from Article 19 of the Constitution or elsewhere into "procedure established by law". The majority view was that this could not be done. I think, if I may venture to conjecture what opinions learned Judges of this Court would have expressed on that occasion had other types of law or other aspects of personal liberty, such as those which confronted this Court in either Satwant Singh's case (supra) or Kharak Singh's case (supra) were before them, the same approach or the same language would not have been adopted by them. It seems to me that this aspect of Gopalan's case (supra) is important to remember if we are to correctly understand what was laid down in that case. I have already referred to the passages I cited in A. D. M. Jabaipur's case (supra) to show that, even in Gopalan's case (supra), the majority of judges of this Court took the view that (the ambit of personal liberty protected by Article 21 is wide and comprehensive. It embraces both substantive rights to personal liberty and the procedure provided for their deprivation. One can, however, say that no question of "due process-of law" can really arise apart from procedural requirements of preventive detention laid down by Article 22, in a case such as the one this Court considered in Gopalan's case (supra). The clear meaning of Article 22 is that the requirements of "due process of law", in cases of preventive detention, are satisfied by what is, provided by Article 22 of the Constitution itself. This article in- dicates the pattern of "the procedure established by law" for cases of preventive detention.

648

Questions, however, relating to either deprivation or restrictions of personal liberty, concerning laws falling outside Article 22 remained really unanswered, strictly speaking, by Gopalan's case. If one may so put it, the field of "due process" for cases of preventive detention is fully covered by Article 22, but other parts of that field, not covered by Article 22, are "unoccupied" by its specific provisions. I have no doubt that, in what may be called "unoccupied" portions of the vast sphere of personal liberty, the substantive as well as procedural laws made to cover them must satisfy the requirements of both Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Articles dealing with different fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution do not represent entirely separate streams of rights which do not mingle at many points. They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the Constitution. Their waters must mix to constitute that grand flow of unimpeded and impartial Justice (social,economic and political), Freedom (not only of thought, expression,belief, faith and worship, but also of association, movement, vacationor occupation as well as of acquisition and possession of reasonable property), of Equality (of status and of opportunity, which imply absence of unreasonable or unfair discrimination between individuals, groups and classes), and of Fraternity (assuring dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation), which our Con- stitution visualises. Isolation of various aspects of human freedom, for purposes of their protection, is neither realistic nor beneficial but would defeat the very objects of such protection.

We have to remember that the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution, out of which Articles 14, 19 and 21 are the most frequently invoked, form tests of the validity of executive as well as legislative actions when these actions are subjected to judicial scrutiny. We cannot disable Article 14 or 19 from so functioning and hold those executive and legislative actions to which they could apply as unquestionable even when there is no emergency to shield actions of doubtful legality. These tests are, in my opinion, available to us now to determine the constitutional validity of Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act as well as of the impugned order of 7th July, 1977, passed against the petitioner impounding her passport "in the interest of general public" and stating that the Government bad decided not to furnish her with a copy of reasons and claiming immunity from such disclosure under section 10(5) of the Act.

I have already mentioned some of the authorities relied upon by me in A. D. M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla (Supra), while discussing the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, to hold that its ambit is very wide. I will now indicate why, in my view, the particular rights claimed by the petitioner could fall within Articles 19 and 21. and the nature and origin of such rights.

Mukerji J., in Gopalan's case (supra) referred to the celebrated commentaries of Blackstone on the Laws of England. It is instructive to reproduce passages from there even though juristic reasoning may have travelled today beyond the stage reached by it when Blackstone 649

wrote. Our basic concepts on such matters, stated there, have provided the foundations on which subsequent superstructures were raised. Some of these foundations, fortunately, remain intact. Blackstone said : "This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all coun- tries, and at all times : no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

The identification of natural law with Divine will or dictates of God may have, quite understandably, vanished at a time when men see God, if they see one anywhere at all, in the highest qualities inherent in the nature of Man himself. But the idea of a natural law as a morally inescapable postulate of a just order, recognizing the inalienable and inherent rights of all men (which term includes women) as equals before the law persists. It is, I think, embedded in our own Constitution. I do not think that we can reject Blackstone's theory of natural rights as totally irrelevant for us today.

Blackstone propounded his philosophy of natural or absolute rights in the following terms :

"The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth,and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But everyman, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase, and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that will and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man that considers a moment would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power, and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.

judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed, it need not be shown to be super- ,added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a Person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."

In England, the rule was thus expressed by Byles J. in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works(1)

"The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before be was called upon to make his defence. "Adam (says God), "where art thou ? Hast thou ? not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat And the same question was put to Eve also."

I find no difficulty whatsoever in holding, on the strength of these well recognised principles, that an order impounding a passport must be made quasi-judicially. This was not done in the case before us.

In my estimation, the findings arrived at by my learned brethren after an examination of the facts of the case before us, with which I concur, indicate that it cannot be said that a good enough reason has been shown to exist for impounding the passport of the petitioner by the order dated 7th July, 1977. Furthermore, the petitioner has bad no opportunity of showing that the ground for impounding it finally given in this Court either does not exist or has no bearing on public interest or that public interest cannot be better served in some other manner. Therefore, speaking for myself, I would quash the order and direct the opposite parties to give an opportunity to the petitioner to show- cause against any proposed action on such grounds as may be available.

I am not satisfied that there were present any such pressing grounds with regard to the petitioner before us that the immediate action of impounding her passport was called for. Furthermore, the rather cavalier fashion in which disclosure of any reason for impounding her passport was denied to her, despite the fact that the only reason said to exist the possibility of her being called to give evidence before a commission of inquiry and stated in the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, is not such as to be reasonably deemed to necessitate, its concealment in

(1) 1863 (14) C.B. (N.S.) 180.

public interest, may indicate the existence of some undue prejudice against the petitioner. She has to be protected against even the appearance of such prejudice or bias. It appears to me that even executive authorities when taking administrative action which involves any deprivations of or restrictions on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.

The attitude adopted by the Attorney General however, shows that Passport authorities realize fully that the petitioner's case has not been justly or reasonably dealt with. As the undertaking given by the Attorney General amounts to an offer to deal with it justly and fairly after informing the petitioner of any ground that may exist for impounding her passport, it seems that no further action by this Court may be necessary. In view, however, of what is practically an admission that the order actually passed on 7th July, 1977, is neither fair nor procedurally proper, I would, speaking for myself, quash this order and direct the return of the impounded passport to the petitioner. I also think that the petitioner is entitled to her costs. CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner's passport dated June 1, 1976 having been impounded "in public interest" by an order dated July 2, 1977 and the Government of India having declined "in the interest of general public" to furnish to her the reasons. for its decision, she has filed this writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution to challenge that order. The challenge is founded on the following grounds : (1) To the extent to which section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport authority to impound a passport "in the interests of the general public", it is violative of article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority;

(2) Section 10 (3) (c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is, impounded;

(3) Section 10(3)(c) is violative of article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe 'procedure' within the meaning of that article and since the procedure which it prescribes is arbitrary and unreasonable; and (4) Section 10 (3)(c) offends against articles 19(1)(a) and 19 (1 ) (g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).