MANEKA GANDHI vs.

UNION OF INDIA

Summary of Facts:
Maneka Gandhi (the petitioner) was a journalist who received her passport under the Passport
Act of 1967 on June 1, 1976. The petitioner was then asked to surrender her passport by the
Regional Passport Officer in New Delhi via a letter dated July 2nd, 1977. When questioned
why her passport was cancelled, the Ministry of External Affairs refused to provide any
explanations, claiming that it was "in the public interest." As a result, the petitioner filed a
writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that the seizure of her
passport violated her fundamental rights, specifically Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article
19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty),
all of which are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The respondent forgeries a document
claiming that the petitioner was needed to be present during the ongoing proceedings before a
judge. The petitioner claimed, among other things, that the decision in question was unlawful
because it denied her the right to a fair hearing to present her case. As a result, the petitioner
was denied "Audi Alteram Partem," a key grounding of fundamental justice principles
(Principles of Natural Justice).

Issues before the court:

 Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of
the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution
of India?
 Whether ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.
 What is the connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India?
 Determining the scope of “Procedure established by Law”.
 Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is
violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is, whether such legislation is a concrete
Law?
 Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of
principles of natural justice?

Judgement:
While delivering this judgment, the index of our Constitution was changed by the court by
declaring that even if the expression in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” and not
“due process of law” still, this does not mean that the procedure therein can be full of evil of
arbitrariness & irrationality.
 1. It was held that the Constitution makers would never have intended to harbour such
an idea within the realm of the Constitution. The makers would never have intended
for the process to be just & completely reasonable. The constitution of India was
drafted for protecting the “people of India” and a wrong elucidation of Article 21
would result in hindrance.
2. The decision in the case of A.K. Gopalan was overruled by court thereby conforming
with the dissent of Justice Fazal Ali. This further went on to declare that there is a
peculiar relationship between Article 14, 19 & 21 that is within provisions mentioned
in the “Golden Triangle” of our Constitution & therefore it is imperative that the tests
laid within shall be passed by every law for it to be valid.
3. It was also held that the extent of the notion of “personal liberty” shall not be
understood in a stricter or narrower manner. The court urged for a broader and more
liberal understanding of the concept. This paved the way for a primarily expensive
interpretation of Article 21. Directions were laid upon the future courts to widen the
horizons of Article 21 of the Constitution so as to in still within all the Fundamental
Rights and prevent any stern and restricted construction.
4. The right to go overseas has been guaranteed to one within Article 21 of the
Constitution.
5. It was observed that there is no violation of Article 19(1)(a), 19 (1)(g) & Article 21 of
the Constitution by Section 10(3)(c) of this Act (Passport Act). The court also added
that the said provision is not in contradiction to Article 14 of the constitution either.
Petitioner’s contention that the impoundment in public interest is not vague was
rejected by the court.
6. It was further held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) of the Passports Act in question
pertains to orders of administrative nature and can be challenged on various grounds
including – denial of principles of natural justice, mala fide intention,
unreasonableness, and ultra vires to the Constitution.
7. A suggestion was made by the court to the union government according to which
reasons in every case shall be provided ordinarily and the government must only on
rare occasions use the liberty of Section 10 Sub Section 5 of the Passports Act 1967.
8. Rights mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) & 19(1)(a) of the Constitution are not
territorially limited.
9. A new concept of “Post decisional hearing” theory was evolved in which action was
followed by a proper method of trial and judgement which is seen in coherence with
the action taken. As against the normal procedure of trial & judgement before the
action is taken (pre decisional theory).

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Latin phrase "ratio decidendi" means "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision."
In common language, the Ratio Decidendi refers to the reasoning for the decision. It truly
refers to the component of the decision that is a major aspect of the decision without which
the judge would be unable to reach the stated result.
It is necessary to have prior knowledge of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act in question before
proceeding to the ratio & reason of the case.
It states that a passport can be seized "if the passport authority judges it necessary to do so in
the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, security, cordial relations with any foreign
country, or in the interests of the general public."
On January 25, 1978, the Supreme Court handed down this important decision. The Indian
Constitution was changed as a result of this decision. In this case, the court applied Justice
Fazal Ali's dissenting view, which he had submitted in the A. K Gopalan v. State of Madras
case. This judgment's ratio led in an incomprehensible expansion of Article 21's scope, as
well as ensuring clarity with regard to particular conditions and situations in the Indian
Constitution. With only a few exceptions, the verdict was unanimous.
It was a majority decision with some minor differences of opinion in a few spots, but no
major objections.
Following is the ratio of the case:

1. Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated by Section 10(3)(c) of the Act in

question.
2. The order issued in the present case is violative of the Principle of Natural Justice.
That is the rule of Audi Alteram Partem.
3. Section 10(3)(c) of the Act in question does not violate Article 19(1)(a) & Article
19(1)(g) or Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. The order issued is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

OBITER DICTA

The Latin phrase “obiter dicta” means “other things said”

It refers to a judge's passing remarks or views on a topic that arises in a case that does not
require a decision.
Obiter statements aren't necessary for a decision and don't set a precedent.
In this case:
1. The freedom of speech is not geographically bound i.e., Article 19 (1)(a) which
encompasses within the freedom of speech & expression is not bound only to Indian
Territory.
2. Whenever we read Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is not to be read in
isolation which means that all the procedural requirements & violations and under
Article 21 are to be tested for ‘Article 14 and Article 19 also.