Maneka Gandhi v/s Union Of India, 1978 [AIR 1978 (SC) 597]

(The Golden Triangle)

Bench: H. Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S.
Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam

Submitted By: Shivshankar S Mishra, 1st Sem . LLB 3 Years (N.E.P)

Guide : Mrs. Aruna Kadu

Acedemic Year: 2023-24

GOVINRAO WANJARI COLLEGE OF LAW, NAGPUR

RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

1
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport Act
of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender
her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral
decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending
that the State's act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right of Personal
Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant
Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam[2] held that right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of
Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.

The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest of the
general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 for violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution alleging that
Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.

Issue Before the Court

1. 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?
2. Whether 'Right to Travel Abroad' is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.
3. What is the Connection between the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India?
4. Determining the scope of " Procedure established by Law"
5. 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?
6. Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of
principles of natural justice?

2
Act/Rules/Laws:
Constitution of India Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21--Personal liberty, Whether right to go abroad
is part of personal liberty, Whether a law which Complies with Article 21 has still to meet the
challenge of Article 19—Nature and ambit of Article 14--Judging validity with reference to
direct and inevitable effect--Whether the right under Article 19(1) (a) has any geographical
limitation.

Passports Act, 1967-Ss. 3,5,6,10(3)(c), 10(5) --Whethers.10(3)(c) is violative of Articles 14,

19(1) (a) (b) & 21--Grounds for refusing to grant passport--Whether the power to impound
passport arbitrary--"in general public interest" if vague. Principles of Natural Justice--Whether
applies only to quasi-judicial orders or applies to administrative orders affecting rights of
citizens--When statute silent whether can be implied--Duty to act judicially whether can be spelt
out—In urgent cases whether principles of natural justice can apply.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
This case is notable for its significant impact on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, which pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty.

In this case, Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government, preventing her from
traveling abroad. She challenged this action, arguing that it violated her fundamental right to life
and personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court, in its decision, expanded the scope of
Article 21 and held that the procedure established by law for depriving a person of their personal
liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court introduced the concept of "due process of
law" into the Indian legal system, emphasizing that the law must not be arbitrary, unfair, or
unreasonable.

The ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) in the Maneka Gandhi case is that any law or
procedure that affects a person's life and personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. This
case had a profound impact on constitutional law in India and is considered a landmark judgment
in the protection of fundamental rights.

3
Contentions by Parties on issues:
Petitioner’s Contention
The ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is a derivative of the right provided under ‘personal liberty’ and no
citizen can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. Also,
the Passports Act, 1967 does not prescribe any procedure for confiscating or revoking or
impounding a passport of its holder. Hence, it is unreasonable and arbitrary.

Further, The Central Government acted in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by
not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. Hence, the true interpretation of Article
21, as well as its nature and protection, are required to be laid down.

Any procedure established by law is required to be free of arbitrariness and must comply with
the “principles of natural justice”.

To upkeep the intention of the Constituent Assembly and to give effect to the spirit of our
constitution, Fundamental Rights should be read in consonance with each other and in this case,
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India must be read together.

Fundamental rights are entitled to every citizen by virtue of being a human and is guaranteed
against being exploited by the state. Hence, these fundamental rights should be wide-ranged and
comprehensive to provide optimum protection.

To have a well-ordered and civilized society, the freedom guaranteed to its citizens must be in
regulated form and therefore, reasonable restrictions were provided by the constitutional
assembly from clauses (2) to (6) in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. But, the laid
restrictions do not provide any ground to be executed in this case.

Article 22 confers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. In this case, the
government by confiscating the passport of the petitioner without providing her any reasons for
doing so has illegally detained her within the country.

In Kharak Singh v. the State of U.P, it was held that the term “personal liberty” is used in the
constitution as a compendium including all the varieties of rights in relation to personal liberty
whether or not included in several clauses of Article 19(1).

4
An essential constituent of Natural Justice is “Audi Alteram Partem” i.e., given a chance to be
heard, was not granted to the petitioner.

Passports Act 1967 violates the ‘Right to Life and Liberty’ and hence is ultra virus. The
petitioner was restrained from traveling abroad by virtue of the provision in Section 10(3)(c) of
the Act of 1967.

Respondents contentions

The Attorney General of India argued that the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ was never covered under
any clauses of article 19(1) and hence, Article 19 is independent of proving the reasonableness of
the actions taken by the Central Government.

The Passport Law was not made to blow away the Fundamental Rights in any manner. Also, the
Government should not be compelled to state its grounds for seizing or impounding someone’s
passport for the public good and national safety. Therefore, the law should not be struck down
even if it overflowed Article 19.

Further, the petitioner was required to appear before a committee for an inquiry and hence, her
passport was impounded.

Reiterating the principle laid down in A.K Gopalan, the respondent contended that the word law
under Article 21 cannot be comprehended in the light fundamental rules of natural justice.

Further, the principles of natural justice are vague and ambiguous. Therefore, the constitution
should not refer to such vague and ambiguous provisions as a part of it.

Article 21 is very wide and it also contains in itself, the provisions of Articles 14 & 19. However,
any law can only be termed unconstitutional to Article 21 when it directly infringes Article 14 &
19. Hence, passport law is not unconstitutional.

Article 21 in its language contains “procedure established by law” & such procedure need not
pass the test of reasonability.

The constitutional makers while drafting this constitution had debated at length on American
“due process of law” & British “procedure established by law”. The conspicuous absence of the

5
due process of law from the Constitutional provisions reflects the mind of the framers of this
constitution. The mind and spirit of the framers must be protected and respected.

Finding:
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Supreme Court of India
made several important findings that had a profound impact on the interpretation of fundamental
rights under the Indian Constitution. Here are some key findings:

1. Expanded Scope of Article 21: The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with human
dignity. The Court expanded the scope of Article 21 beyond its literal interpretation.
2. Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process of Law: The Court introduced the concept of
"due process of law" into the Indian legal system. It held that any law or procedure that
deprives a person of their personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court
moved away from the earlier position that the state could deprive a person of their liberty as
long as it followed a prescribed legal procedure, emphasizing the quality of the procedure.
3. Judicial Review of Administrative Action: The Court emphasized the importance of judicial
review of administrative actions, especially when they affect the fundamental rights of
individuals. It held that the principles of natural justice must be observed even in
administrative proceedings.
4. Reasonableness of Restrictions: The Court established that any restriction on the right to
travel abroad must be reasonable. The authorities must provide the affected person with an
opportunity to be heard before imposing such restrictions.
5. Doctrine of Eclipse: The Court applied the doctrine of eclipse, stating that if a law, which
was initially valid, becomes inconsistent with fundamental rights due to subsequent
constitutional amendments, the law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency.

These findings collectively contributed to a more expansive and rights-oriented interpretation of

the Constitution, ensuring that the protection of fundamental rights was not merely a formalistic
exercise but also involved a substantive assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of laws
and procedures affecting individual liberties.

6
Reasoning:
The reasoning in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case (AIR 1978 SC 597) revolves around
a reinterpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty. The case marked a significant departure from previous interpretations and
introduced the concept of "due process of law" into the Indian legal system.

Disposition:
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Supreme Court of India
made a significant disposition that had far-reaching implications for the interpretation of
fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The disposition in this case involved specific directions and declarations by
the Court.

The Court expanded the scope of Article 21, introducing the concept of "due process of law" and
emphasizing fairness, justness, and reasonableness in laws affecting individual liberties. The
Court also stressed the importance of judicial review in administrative actions, ensuring they
adhered to natural justice principles. The case also applied the doctrine of eclipse, stating that if a
law becomes inconsistent with fundamental rights due to subsequent amendments, it becomes
void.

Judgement:

It was held that:

1. The Passport Act 1967, which allowed individuals to leave their home country and settle
abroad, was a significant step in regulating passports. The Supreme Court ruled that
personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad, can only be deprived of through
procedures established by law. The Central Government's decision to confiscate the
petitioner's passport was deemed unconstitutional, as it was not done in the public
interest. The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not
distinctive or mutually exclusive, and any law depriving a person of their personal liberty

7
 must be tested for one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. The
phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21 is not arbitrary or irrational, and the
infringement of natural justice principles cannot be condemned as unfair. Section 10(3)
(c) of the Passports Act 1967 is not violative of any fundamental rights, especially Article
14. While fundamental rights are sought in cases of individual rights violations, they are
not limited to India's territory.

Critical Analysis:
Overruling A.K Gopalan’s decision was appreciated nationwide and this case had become a
landmark case in history since it broadened the scope of fundamental rights.

The respondent’s contention that any law is valid and legit until it is repealed was highly
criticized by judges.

Also, by providing a liberal interpretation to Maneka Gandhi, the courts had set a benchmark for
coming generations to seek their basic rights whether or not explicitly mentioned under part III
of the constitution.

Today, the courts have successfully interpreted different cases in order to establish socio-
economic and cultural right under the umbrella of Article 21 such as – Right to Clean Air, Right
to Clean Water, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Legal Aid, Right to
Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment, etc.as a part of
Right to Life & Personal liberty.

The judgment opened new dimensions in the judicial activism and PIL’s were appreciated and
judges took interests in liberal interpretation wherever it was needed in the prevailing justice.

Conclusion:
The Maneka Gandhi judgment was a decent judgment and is perhaps the best judgment that
Indian Supreme Court has ever given. The judgment’s most noteworthy element was the
interlinking it built up between the arrangements of Article 14, 19 and 21. By the goodness of
this connection the court made these arrangements indistinguishable and a solitary element.

8
Presently any technique to be legitimate needs to meet all the prerequisites referenced under
Article 14, 19 and 21. Subsequently, it extended the extent of individual freedom exponentially
and secured the protected and crucial right to life all things considered.

The judgment while spared the residents from verifiable activities of Executive additionally
spared the holiness of Parliamentary law when it didn’t strike down Section 10(3)(c) and 10(5)
of 1967 Act. The court additionally reminded the specialists to just once in a while utilize the
privilege of segment 10(5) in order to fulfill that their activities were balanced and very much
idea. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) and 10(5) is a managerial request in this way, open to
challenge on the grounds of mala fide, outlandish, refusal of normal equity and ultra vires.

The judgment’s significance can be seen today additionally in light of the fact that the manner by
which the seat translated Article 21 and extended its points of view has given path for the settling
of issues left unsolved by the Parliament. It’s very clear that this judgment has assumed a basic
job in understanding Right to clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to opportunity from Noise
Pollution, Speedy Trial, Standard Education, Fair Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to
Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment and so forth., as a piece of Right to
Life and Personal freedom referenced u/a 21.

Reference
1.
https://lawyersnotes.com/blog/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/
2.
http://lawtimesjournal.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/
3.
Scc online
4.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
5.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950642
6.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/