CASE ANALYSIS

CCE COMPONENT- 2

CMR SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

Course Teacher: Mrs. Chanjana Elsa Philip Name of the Student: Supritha Shetty

Date: 15-05-2022 USN No: 21DBLBT049

Sem/Program: II Sem/LLB

Signature:
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

Subject: Interpretation of Statutes

CASE ANALYSIS
On
MANEKA GANDHI
v.
UNION OF INDIA1

Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

Respondent: Union of India
Date of Judgement: 25/01/1978

1
1978 AIR SC 597

2
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

INTRODUCTION
This case gave us a better understanding of Article 21 and whose interpretation was
given further scope. Article 21 is one of the fundamental rights which have been
interpreted widely with sensitivity and marked the era of new period in the
interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Articles 14, 19 and 21 by
the Indian Constitution and not to forget this was one of the judgments which was
considered as progressive and is still applicable in today’s time as a judicial
precedents. This case gave us a new dimension to rights guaranteed under Article 21.

BACKGROUND
Maneka Gandhi’s case overruled the case of A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras2, which
was one of the cases filed in the Supreme Court for the violation of Article 21. In the
case of A.K. Gopalan, the case was filed by the Petitioner who was detained under the
Preventive Detention Act 1950 and his rights were violated under the Article 14, 19,
21 of the constitution. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that the law
should be reasonable and not arbitrary. However, the Supreme Court rejected the
contention and stated that there was no scope of arbitrariness. Only after 28 years,
which is in the year of 1978, Maneka Gandhi’s case gave a wider scope of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

FACTS
The petitioner (Maneka Gandhi), a journalist was issued passport in the year 1976 (1st
June, 1976) and was planning to travel to another nation on the account of her
official purpose but in the year 1977(July 4, 1977), the passport authority through
letter asked her to surrender the passport as per the Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport
Act, 1967.
However, the petitioner requested for a specific reason for the surrender of the
passport. The reply from the authorities was that “it was in the interest of sovereignty
and integrity of the state” and refused to provide the copy of the statement order.
Maneka, not satisfied with the reply, filed a writ petition under Article 32 for the
violation of her rights under Article 14, 19, 21 of the constitution. She requested an

2
1950 AIR SC 27

3
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

opportunity to be fair and reasonable before revoking the passport without being
given a chance to be heard.

ISSUES
1. Are the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 connected
or mutually exclusive?
2. Whether revoking the passport under Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act
1967 violates one’s right and is it arbitrary?
3. Are the fundamental rights absolute and conditional and does the right to
travel abroad under the scope of Article 21?

LAWS RELATING TO THE CASE

Constitution of India: Article 14: Right to equality
Article 19(1) (a): Right to Freedom of Speech
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
Article 32: Right to remedy, if the fundamental rights are violated guaranteed by the
Constitution

Under Passport Act, 1967: Section 10(3) (c): Right of the Passport authority to
revoke the passport to protect the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India
Section 10(5): To provide the record of the statement for revocation

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER:
The petitioner in this case was deprived of “audi alteram partem”, which means
Maneka wasn’t given a chance to present her side of story or chance to be heard and
which is considered an ingredient of justice and legal system.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: This maxim says that everyone should be given fair and
reasonable chance to present their side of the story

Article 21 was violated by Section 10(3) (c) of the Passports Act, 1967, which is right
to life and personal liberty and violated Maneka Gandhi’s freedom of movement and

4
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

there was a contention that section 10(3)(c) should be considered as ultra vires as
there is a major violation of the fundamental right by this section
Further, it was contended that fundamental Rights has to be read together so that the
intention of the constituent assembly is not lost in its interpretation.

RESPONDENT:
The Attorney General of India represented as the counsel for the respondent. The
respondent claimed that since there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear for hearing before the committed and hence the passport was revoked.

The respondent argued that authorities are not answerable to the petitioner when the
order was issued in the benefit of social and national interest and is not considered to
be violative of Article 19 and need not be struck down.

Section 10(3) (c) is a procedure established by law and is not violative of Article 14,
19 and 21 and there is no requirement to pass the reasonability test.

Right to travel is not a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and there is a
distinction between due process of law (American concept) and procedure
established by law was discussed by the framers of the constitution and omission of
American concept by the framers showcases the mindset of them and should be
respected.

The respondent argued that the constitution cannot be read in vague as the
principles of natural justice are quite vague.

POSITION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

BEFORE MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE:
A.K. Gopalan Case: This was the first case where personal liberty was brought into
picture questioning the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
However, the contentions by the petitioner were rejected and held that the mention
of law isn't in accordance with the natural justice principles under Article 21. The
petitioner argued that the Articles 19 and 21 don't stand alone and they stand

5
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

together. We could see that in this case, our Hon’ble Supreme Court gave restrictive
interpretation for the term ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21.
POSITION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
AFTER MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE:
The Maneka Gandhi’s case gave us new dimension to Article 21 and this case
overruled the A.K.Gopalan’s case, which was given a restrictive meaning to the term
‘personal liberty’ but this case widened the scope. The court further upheld that
Articles 19 and 21 are controlled by each other and interdependent on each other. If
there is a violation of anyone’s personal liberty by the law, it should stand the test of
all the three Articles of 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution.

JUDGEMENT
The case was ruled in the favour of the petitioner and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
gave Article 21 a wider interpretation and considered right to travel abroad under
Article 21 but rejected the plea of the counsel representing petitioner that Section
10(3) (c) violates fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 but held that
restrainment on Maneka, the petitioner was unconstitutional without a proper
hearing of the petitioner. The court overruled the A.K. Gopalan’s case and
reinterpreted Article 21 for procedure established by law and stated that it should be
fair and reasonable. The court upheld that personal liberty needs to be given wider
and liberal interpretation and the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g) are beyond India’s territory. The court further went on to mention that
Articles 14, 19 and 21 are connected and are not mutually exclusive and combined
reading of all these three articles will uphold the spirit of our constitution. In this
case there was a unanimous judgement by a 7-judge bench and questioned the act of
the passport authorities.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Article 21 was given a much wider scope and interpretation unlike A.K. Gopalan. The
court in fact held that Article 21 should not be confined by arbitrariness and
unreasonability. This was one of such cases where the concept of “Golden Triangle
Test '', was given its true meaning in the context of the fundamental rights by stating

6
 MANEKA GANDHI v/s UOI

that Article 14, 19 and 21 are interdependent. After this case, it was mandatory that
law should stand the constitutionality test of Article 21, 14 and 19.
This case is one of the landmark cases in the Indian legal system and I am in favour
of the judgement by the constitution bench because giving wider interpretation of
Article 21 restored faith in the Indian legal system which was somewhere vanished
after the judgement of A.K.Gopalan. It in fact gave a new horizon regarding the
interpretation of fundamental rights in the constitution.