Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)

Introduction

 Case Title- Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

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

 Date of judgment – 25/01/1978

 Bench – Hameedullah Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer,
N.L. Untwalia, S.M. Fazal Ali and P.S. Kailasam

Facts

In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, Maneka Gandhi was asked to give her passport
up.

 A letter was sent to Maneka Gandhi on 2nd July 1977 from the passport officer who was
regionally in charge in Delhi conveying a decision has been made by the Union
government to confiscate her passport under the section 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967
‘in public interest’.

 Section 10(3)(c) of the passport Act states - if the sovereignty, integrity or cordial
association of India with any other country are being hampered then a person can be
asked to submit their passport.

 When she asked for the reason to submit her passport, she was told that it was “in public
interest”

 After looking at all the facts Maneka Gandhi decided to file a writ petition under Article
32 of the Indian constitution asserting that confiscating her passport was violating her
fundamental rights.

 The fundamental rights that were being violated here were “Right to Equality” that is
Article 14, “Freedom of Speech and Expression” that is Article 19 and “Right to Life”
that is Article 21.

Issues involved

 Whether the right to travel abroad is included as a part of liberty under article 21.

 Whether the passport Act violates Article14, Article 19 and Article 21.
  Whether Article 19 is confined to Indian territories only.

 Whether article 14, 19 and 21 are connected.

Judgment delivered

 The rights enshrined in Article 21 also include the right to travel as per the judgment
given in the Satwant Singh case.

 Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not exclusive and they depend on each other. If either one of
these articles is being violated, then the other two will also be considered to be violated.

 The rights that are discussed under Article 19 are not just confined to the Indian
territories.

 It was decided that in Article 21 which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life
and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”, the phrase that
will be used in the article 21 will be “due process of law” rather than “procedure
established by law” as it has the procedures that are fair and logical.

 In the judgment given in the case of A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras it was decided that
only “procedure established by law” will be used, but that judgment was overruled in this
case.

 The Passport Act does not violate article 14, 19, 21.

Contrast between “procedure established by law” and “due process of law”

 “Procedure established by law” states that executive action of a case can be monitored
by the supreme court to check whether the course of action of the case was as per the law
or not.
 “Due process of law” is the same as procedure established by law, but it also checks
whether the law that is used is fair and free from arbitrariness.
Impact of judgment

 The court said that the concept of “personal liberty” should be described in a broader
sense. The meaning of personal liberty should be expanded and recognized in a liberal
sense. Hence, Article 21 was given an expanded explanation.

 Scope of article 21 was expanded, the article now includes right to clean air, right to
food, right to clean environment etc.

 Judicial activism began from this case as the extent of “procedure established by law”
was determined.
  The beginning of judicial activism and expanding the scope of article 21 makes the
judgment in this case a landmark judgment.

Reference

https://lawtimesjournal.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/

A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras

https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=satwant%20singh%20sawhney

https://passportindia.gov.in/AppOnlineProject/pdf/passports_act.pdf

Submitted by- Vanshita Kalra

Amity law School, Noida