CASE COMMENT ON MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA
PETITIONER:
MANEKA GANDHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/1978
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION: 1978 AIR 597
Introduction:
This case analysis is the outcome of the Landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India1which ramified the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This case is not landmark only with respect of understanding the various facets of Article 21 of
the Constitution, but it also provided a completely new perspective or new approach to Chapter
III of the Indian Constitution.
Prior to the decision in this case, Article 21 granted the right to life and personal liberty primarily
against the bodily movements impediments, but after the ruling of this case on January 25, 1978,
it was held that right to life and personal liberty is not limited only to the bodily movement but it
covers every aspect that makes the life of person worthful to live, and as the result of this other
aspects are also being covered in this article, later on.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court introduced and incorporated the “Golden Triangle” rule,
strengthening its stand as the guarantor or caretaker of democracy.
Background:
Passport Act, 1967 was enacted with the advent of the decision in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.
Ramarathnam2, in which the Supreme Court had held that no individual could be deprived of
their right to travel abroad without adherence to a legal process i.e. “procedure established by
law”, since Article 21 of Indian Constitution itself guarantees freedom to travel abroad.
On June 1, 1976, the present case petitioner Maneka Gandhi was issued a
passport as per law. As per section 10(3)(c) of the Act, Regional Passport Officer,
Delhi, dispatched a letter on July 2, 1977, compelling the petitioner to surrender her
passport within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. Subsequently, the
petitioner sought a copy of the statement of reasons for the seizure order as under section 10(5)
of the Act to which the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of
India readily replied refusing to give a copy saying that a copy cannot be given in the public
interest.
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi who was a journalist by profession subsequently made a plea
before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. This
case now commonly referred to as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, created a milestone in Indian history where it came to highlight several concerns which were directly contested in the
case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, such as the scope of the clause “procedure established
by law” and its nexus with arbitrariness, reason, and justice. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, the court agreed with Justice Faizal Ali’s dissenting decision in A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras, holding that “procedure established by law” must be “just”, “reasonable”, “fair”, and
“free of arbitrariness”, i.e., the introduction of the term “due process of law”.
FACTS:
The petitioner was issued a passport on 1st JUNE, 1976 under the PASSPORT ACT, 1967.On 4th
JULY,1977, petitioner received the letter that was dated on 2nd July, 1977, from the Regional
Passport Officer, Delhi. In the letter it was being mentioned that as per the decision of the
Government of India, the petitioner’s passport is being impounded under section 10(3)(c) in the
“public interest “of the abovementioned act, and within 7 days from the receipt of letter she was
required to surrender her passport.
In return, the petitioner immediately addressed the letter to the
Regional Passport Officer requesting him provide the reasons for making the order as provided in
section 10(5). In reply as sent by the Ministry of External Affairs on 6th July, 1977, it was stated
that the reason cannot be disclosed to the petitioner because “in the interest of general public”.
Aggrieved by same the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.
In the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner Alleged that this act
constitutes the infringement of her fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21.
Issues:
The major issues raised in the court:
a) Whether there is any nexus among the Article 14,19 and 21 or not?
b) Whether there is scope of phrase “Procedure Established by Law”?
c) Whether Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. 1967 is valid or not?
d) Whether the protection of the Article 21 “procedure established by law’ is available
only to the Executive Actions or also covers the Legislative Action?
Arguments advanced by the Petitioners:
a) The “Right to Travel Abroad” is the derivative right of the Article 21, and it can only be
deprived according to the “Procedure Established By law”, but the Passport Act,1967
does not prescribe any procedure for the impounding the passport of its holder, hence
this act is unreasonable and arbitrary.
b) There should be harmonious construction of the Article 14,19 and 21 because then only
the true spirit of the constitution can be realized, since these articles are complementary
to one another.
c) Although India may not have embraced and officially accepted the American notion of
the clause “due process of law,” still it requires that the legal process should be “just,”
“fair” and “reasonable” and in no case, it shall be arbitrary, and without listening to the
contention of the petitioner there is violation of the fundamental Natural Justice
principle.
d) The alleged section of the Passport Act is violative of Article 21 only to the extent it infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under broad connotations of Article 21.
e) Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be fairly heard, her Audi Alteram
Partem, which one of the principles of the Fundamental Right is not realized, thus
violative of Article 14.
Arguments given by the Respondents:
a)to begin with, the respondent in its defense apprised the court that the passport of
the supposed petitioner was confiscated because the petitioner “had to appear before a
government committee for a hearing.”
b)Then respondent of the current case also argued that the words ‘law’ in Article 21 cannot be
interpreted in the line of basic canons of natural justice thus reiterating the judgment rendered in A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras3.
c) According to the expression “procedure established by law” employed under Article 21, it is
not a requirement that such procedure must satisfy the “test of reasonability” or shall be in
consonance with Articles 14 and 19.
d) The framers of our Indian Constitution, i.e., the members of the Constituent
Assembly took long deliberations regarding both the clauses i.e. the
British notion of “procedure established by law” as well as the American notion of due process
of law. The obvious exclusion of the clause due process of law in the final
constitution fully illustrates the intention of the framers.
Judgement:
Whether Section 10(3)(c) violates Article 21?
It was held that there is clear violation of Article 21 because as the procedure established by
laws mandates the reasons that must be furnished to the person whose liberty is going to be
deprived and as under section 10(3)(C) of the Passport Act, there is power to seize the passport
but it should be done by recording the reasons in writing for doing so and on demand the copy
of same should be furnished to the affected passport holder, and it was not being done in this
scenario .
Whether Section 10(3)(c) violates Article 14 (Equality)?
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act allows the government to impound (take away) someone’s
passport if it is in the public interest. The law provides proper guidelines, like giving reasons
in writing and allowing an appeal. Even if the passport is taken by the Central Government
without appeal, we assume that such power will be exercised carefully and fairly. Courts can
also check if this power is misused. Hence, this section is not arbitrary or unfair and does not
violate Article 14.
Whether freedom of speech and expression is limited to India?
Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, and this freedom is not limited to
India. If the State stops you from expressing yourself anywhere in the world, that would also
violate Article 19(1)(a). Similarly, your right to practice any profession or business under
Article 19(1)(g) applies even outside India.
Does the right to go abroad come under Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g)?
No — the right to go abroad is not specifically part of freedom of speech or the right to practice
any profession or business. Section 10(3)(c), which allows restricting travel abroad by
impounding a passport, is valid under these articles because going abroad is not a fundamental
right under them. But this doesn’t mean every order under Section 10(3)(c) will always be
okay. Even if the law is fine, a particular order can still be challenged if it restricts your speech,
expression, profession, or trade. For example, if impounding someone’s passport directly
affects their free speech or profession, then that specific order could be struck down unless it
fits the reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2) or 19(6).
Meaning and content of personal liberty in Article 21
The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 of Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it
covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them
have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection
under Article 19 of Constitution. It has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh’s case that
‘personal liberty’ within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go
abroad and consequently, no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure
prescribed by law.
Golden Rule and Due Process of Law
Before the Maneka Gandhi case, whenever someone’s rights were affected, the only thing
checked was whether there was a “procedure established by law.” It didn’t matter whether that
law was just, fair, or reasonable — as long as some procedure was followed, it was assumed
Article 21 was not violated. However, in the Maneka Gandhi ruling, the Supreme Court held that
“procedure established by law” must also be fair, just, and reasonable. This means Article 21
cannot be read alone anymore — it must be read together with Articles 14 and 19. So, even if
Parliament passes a law, it must also pass the tests of fairness and reasonableness under Articles
14 and 19. This created the famous “Golden Triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21. Through this,
the concept of “due process of law,” which comes from American law, was also indirectly
introduced into the Indian legal system.
In this case A.K. Gopalan Case 3 was overruled because on that case it was held that all the
Fundamental Rights are Exclusive of one another, but after the advent of Golden Triangle Rule,
it was followed that Fundamental Rights are mutually inclusive to one another and they are not
exclusive and they should be read in the light of one another.
Critical Analysis and Personal View:
The present case is one of the landmark cases in the history, and this case widened the scope of
Personal Liberty, and after this, numerous landmark judgements came that ultimately strengthened
the trust of Indian Citizens in the judiciary and it also made the life of citizens well-functioning.
This judgement curbed the malice and arbitrary law-making powers of the legislatives as earlier
there was no checker on the procedure established by law, even if it was arbitrary because it was
mentioned – the right under Article 21 could be Deprived by the procedure established by law and
the language was vague and it was unable to clarify the meaning that whether the arbitrary
procedure could be struck down or not: and after this judgement it became comprehensible. The
Golden Triangle Rule works as the triple layer protection on the citizens’ rights. The implicit
acceptance of the Due process of law along with the Procedure Established by law, shows that
Indian Constitution is Flexible for the acceptance of all those concepts that ultimately benefit the
citizens of the countries.
Conclusion:
This very case has been held as a landmark one because it provided the ultimate new scope and
understanding of what life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution meant. It
also broadened the scope of freedom of speech and expression, so that the right is no longer
limited by the nation’s territorial bounds, and the Golden Rule Principle was also propounded
in this case and not only this but also there was implicit acceptance of “Due Process of Law”.
REFERENCES
- 1978 AIR 597
- AIR 1967 SC 1836
- AIR 1950 SC 27
