Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of
India on 25 January, 1978
Roshan Nepal
Section:B
Roll No:49
• PETITIONER: MANEKA GANDHI
Vs.
• RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA
• DATE OF JUDGMENT25/01/1978
• BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)
• CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
• BHAGWATI, P.N.
• KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
• UNTWALIA, N.L.
• FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
• KAILASAM, P.S.
FACTS OF THE CASE–
• Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under
the Passport Act 1967. The regional passport officer, New
Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka
Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport
under section 10(3)(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7
days from the date of receipt of the letter.
• Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional
Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the
statement of reasons for such order. However, the
government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to
produce any such reason in the interest of general public.
• Later, a writ petitionwas filed by Maneka
Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in
the Supreme Court challenging the order of
the government of India as violating her
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution.
ISSUES OF THE CASE–
• Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to
personal liberty under Article 21.
• Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as
required by Article 21 before depriving a person from
the right guaranteed under the said article.
• Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is
violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21of the
constitution.
• Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport
officer is in contravention of the principle of natural
justice.
The Golden Triangle
• Article 14 – Equality before the law, the state shall not deny any person
equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territorial
limits of India or prohibition on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex or
place of birth.
• Article 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and
expression. All citizen shall have the right
– To freedom of speech and expression
– To assemble peacefully and without arms
– To form associations or unions
– To move freely throughout the territory of India
– To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
– To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, no person shall be
deprived of his personal liberty except according to the procedures
established by law.
JUDGEMNT OF THE CASE–
• This landmark judgment came on 25th January 1978
and changed the landscape of the Constitution of India.
This judgment expanded the scope of Article 21
exponentially and this judgment truly & really made
India a welfare state as promised in the Preamble. The
seven judge bench gave a unanimous decision except
some judges concurring on some points.
• There were seven separate opinions in which the
majority opinion was written by Justice Bhagwati for
himself, Untwalia& Fazal Ali jj. while Chandrachud,
Iyer& Beg (CJ) wrote separate but concurring opinions.
• The court while delivering this landmark judgment changed
the landscape of the Constitution by holding that though
the phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by
law” instead of “due process of law” however, the
procedure must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
• Even though the Constitution makers must be respected,
but they never intended to plant such a self – destructive
bomb in the heart if the Constitution. They were never of
the mind that the procedure need not necessarily be
reasonable, just and fair. They drafted this Constitution for
the protection of the “people of India” and such
interpretation of Article 21 will be counter-productive to
the protection offered by the Constitution.
• The court held that the scope of “personal
liberty” is not be construed in narrow and
stricter sense. The court said that personal
liberty has to be understood in the broader
and liberal sense. Therefore, Article 21 was
given an expansive interpretation. The court
obligated the future courts to expand the
horizons of Article 21 to cover all the
Fundamental Rights and avoid construing it in
narrower sense.
• Justice Iyer in the context of travelling abroad held that
“Travel makes liberty worthwhile” therefore no person
can be deprived of his right to travel abroad.
• it was Justice Fazal Ali’s opinion in the case that paved
the way for a liberal approach of the interpretation of
Art. 21. Justice Fazal Ali dissented with the majority by
holding that the right to life u/a 21 does constitute
Principles of Natural Justice and the courts should
check that any procedure established by law do not
suffer with the problem of unreasonableness &
arbitrariness. The spirit of Justice Fazal Ali’s argument
was that the procedure should be just, fair and
reasonable.
• The Supreme Court gave a new dimension to
Art. 21 and held that the right to live is not
merely a physical right but includes within its
ambit the right to live with human dignity.
• To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport
authority to impound a passport “in the
interest of the general public”, it is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers
vague and undefined power on the passport
authority.
• Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution since it does not prescribe
‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article
and the procedure practiced is worst.
• Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be
imposed on the rights guaranteed by these
articles even though such restrictions cannot be
imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).
• A new doctrine of post decisional theory was
evolved.
CONCLUSION
• Hence to conclude, it may be said that Maneka
Gandhi‟s case, gave the term „personal liberty‟ widest
possible interpretation and gave effect to the intention
of the drafters of the Constitution. This case, while
adding a whole new dimension to the concept of
„personal liberty‟, extended the protection of Art. 14
to the personal liberty of every person and additional
protection of Art. 19 to the personal liberty of every
citizen.
• In this case the Hon‟ble court interpreted different
Articles of the Constitution very brilliantly.
