Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India

Equivalent Citation - 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

Respondent: Union of India

Issue

1. Is there any nexus between the provisions mentioned under Articles 14, 19 &21.

2. Scope of the word “Procedure Established by Law.”

3. Whether right to travel abroad resides in Article 21.

4. Whether a legislative law that takes away Right to life is reasonable.

Judgement –

This landmark judgment came on 25th January 1978 and changed the landscape of the
Constitution of India. This judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 exponentially and this
judgment truly & really made India a welfare state as promised in the Preamble. The seven judge
bench gave a unanimous decision except some judges concurring on some points.

There were seven separate opinions in which the majority opinion was written by Justice
Bhagwati for himself, Untwalia& Fazal Ali jj. while Chandrachud, Iyer& Beg (CJ) wrote
separate but concurring opinions.
The major findings of the court were as follows:

1. The court while delivering this landmark judgment changed the landscape of the
Constitution by holding that though the phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure
established by law” instead of “due process of law” however, the procedure must be
free from arbitrariness and irrationality.

2. Even though the Constitution makers must be respected, but they never intended to
plant such a self – destructive bomb in the heart if the Constitution. They were never
of the mind that the procedure need not necessarily be reasonable, just and fair. They
drafted this Constitution for the protection of the “people of India” and such
interpretation of Article 21 will be counter-productive to the protection offered by the
Constitution.

3. The court overruled Gopalan by stating that there is a unique relationship between the
provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said
provisions. Earlier in Gopalan the majority held that these provisions in itself are
mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its earlier mistake the court held that these
provisions are not mutually exclusive and dependent on each other.

4. The court held that the scope of “personal liberty” is not be construed in narrow and
stricter sense. The court said that personal liberty has to be understood in the broader
and liberal sense. Therefore, Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation. The
court obligated the future courts to expand the horizons of Article 21 to cover all the
Fundamental Rights and avoid construing it in narrower sense.

5. The right to travel abroad as held in Satwant Singh is within the scope of guarantees
mentioned under Article 21.

6. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act 1967 is not violative of neither Article 21 nor Article
19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g). The court further held that the said 1967 provision also not in
contradiction of Article 14. Since the said provision provides for an opportunity to be
heard. The court rejected the contention of petitioner that the phrase “in the interests
of the general public” is not vague.
 7. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order therefore, open
to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable, denial of natural justice and
ultra vires.

8. The court also suggested government to ordinarily provide reasons in every case and
should rarely use the prerogative of Section 10(5) of the 1967 act.

9. The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) are not confined to the territorial
limits of India.

Ratio –

The judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 exponentially and became a landmark case in the
legal world. The majority judgment was written by Justice Bhagwati, Untwalia & Fazl Ali JJ.
while Chandrachud, Iyer & Beg (CJ) wrote separate but concurring statements.

OBITER DICTA OF THE CASE:

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression {Article 19(1)(a)} is not bound only to the national
territories of India – This was a landmark judgment of the Court and one that was profoundly
celebrated by the whole nation. The Court throughout this case opined that the right to speak
freely and express one's opinion, as ensured to every one of the residents of the nation, was
boundless in that it had given to the citizens countless regardless of whether they were in India or
abroad. The Court held that if the Constitution producers had proposed this right to be bound by
the domains of the nation, at that point they would have explicitly referenced so as they have
improved the situation different rights, for example, the right to settle down unreservedly, or the
right to amass or assemble openly and freely. In any case, since no such words had been included
toward the end of these provisions, the Court felt that it was its obligation to give it the most
extensive understanding conceivable.
Likewise, supporting this view was the way that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
embraced by the General Assembly of the United Nations on tenth December, 1948 and the
majority of the essential rights which we find incorporated into Part III were perceived and
received by the United Nations as the unavoidable privileges of man in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

2. Article 21 isn't to be perused in confinement; all infringement and procedural prerequisite

under Article 21 are to be tried for Article 14 and Article 19 too- The Supreme Court in the
present case had embraced the most stretched out conceivable elucidation of the right to life and
individual freedom, ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati, J. observed:

“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the
status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”

Additionally, as for the connection between Article 19 and Article 21, the Court held that Article
21 is constrained by Article 19, i.e., it must fulfil the necessity of Article 19. The Court observed:
"The law should along these lines presently be settled that Article 21 does not prohibit Article 19
and that regardless of whether there is a law endorsing a method for denying an individual of
individual freedom, and there is thus no encroachment of the basic right given by Article 21 such
a law in so far as it shortens or removes any basic right under Article 19 would need to address
the difficulties of that Article. Thus a law "denying an individual of 'personal liberty' has not
exclusively to stand the test" of Article 21, yet it must stand the trial of Article 19 and Article 14
of the Constitution also