Maneka Gandhi vs Union of

India

Equivalent Citation - 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Petitioner:

Maneka Gandhi

Respondent:

Union of India

Date of Judgment: 25/01/1978

BENCH:

Hameedullah Beg (CJI), Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N Bhagwati,

V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L.Untwalia,

S.M. Fazal Ali& P.S.Kailasam

Fact of Case

The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh[1] held that right to travel abroad is well
within the ambit of Article 21. Therefore, to combat the above laid down law the
Parliament enacted Passports Act 1967. Passport Act, 1967 empowers the
authorities to impound the passport of certain individual if such action is necessary
in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly
relations of India with any foreign country, or general public.[2] The reasons of
such impoundment are also to be communicated the affected party however in the
interests of the general public these reasons can be withheld.[3] In the immediate
case the authorities on July 4th 1977 issued a notice of impoundment of the passport
of Petitioner who was a known journalist citing reasons as in the interest of general
public. As soon as the petitioner got the notice of such impound she reverted back
to the authorities asking for specific detailed reasons as to why her passport shall
be impounded. The authorities however, answered that the reasons are not to be
specified in the interest of the general public. Therefore, the petitioner approached
Supreme Court u/a 32 for the enforcement of Fundamental Right mentioned u/a 14
against the arbitrary action of the authorities. The petition was further amended and
enforcement of Article 21 i.e. Protection of Life & Personal Liberty, Article 19(1)
(a) i.e. Right to freedom of speech & Article 19(1)(g) i.e. Right to freedom of
Movement.Among the major reasons contended for the filing of such petition, the
petitioner contended that the impugned order is void as it took away the
petitioner’s right to be given a fair hearing to present her defense.

This case directly brought into question the legality and validity of A.K. Gopalan
v. State of Madras[4]. In that case it was argued by the petitioner that whether the
validity of any law shall be decided by the fact that it is a procedure established by
law or the law along with being established by law shall also conform to principles
of natural justice. The main debate was around the scope of the word “procedure
established by law” on the point that can such procedure be arbitrary or
unreasonable or should it always be just, reasonable and fair. The majority bench
however rejecting all the arguments of the petitioner held that the word law u/a 21
doesn’t necessarily be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. But 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 court in Maneka Gandhi adopted the dissenting view of Justice Fazal Ali
in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. Therefore, the court held that the while the
procedure established by law should be reasonable, just and fair it shall be free
from any unreasonableness and arbitrariness.

Issue
1. Is there any nexus between the provisions mentioned under Articles 14,
19 &21.
2. Scope of the word “Procedure Established by Law.”
3. Whether right to travel abroad resides in Article 21.
4. Whether a legislative law that takes away Right to life is reasonable.
 Judgment
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 major findings of the court were as follows:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The court overruled Gopalan by stating that there is a unique relationship
between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass
the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in Gopalan the majority held that
these provisions in itself are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its
earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are not mutually
exclusive and dependent on each other.
4. 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.
5. The right to travel abroad as held in Satwant Singh is within the scope of
guarantees mentioned under Article 21.
6. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act 1967 is not violative of neither Article
21 nor Article 19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g). The court further held that the said
1967 provision also not in contradiction of Article 14. Since the said
provision provides for an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the
contention of petitioner that the phrase “in the interests of the general
public” is not vague.
7. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order
therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide, unreasonable,
denial of natural justice and ultra vires.
8. The court also suggested government to ordinarily provide reasons in
every case and should rarely use the prerogative of Section 10(5) of the
1967 act.
9. The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) are not confined to the
territorial limits of India.
 Critical Analysis
The court in commendable way overruled the regressive decision of Gopalan. The
court by delivering this judgment has served the common people. The court
unanimously came harshly upon the contention of the respondent when it
contended that the procedure established by law need not necessarily be just, fair
and reasonable. The respondent’s argument that the law is valid as long as it is not
repealed by the legislature. The court rightly rejected this faulty argument of the
respondent and gave the Right to Life and Personal Liberty a new expansive and
liberal interpretation.

 The court held 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. The court also managed to respect and protect the
sanctity of the Constitution makers by this black stain that the legislature was
trying to portray. The procedure established by law must satisfy certain requisites
in the sense of being reasonable and just and it cannot be arbitrary depriving the
citizens the Fundamental rights.
The court also for once and for all rested the debate by holding that each
Fundamental Rights are not distinct from each other whereas they are mutually
dependent on each other. In this regard Justice Iyer has very well opined that no
Article in the Constitution is an island in itself. Bhagwati j. held that the procedural
law has to meet the requirements of Articles 14 & 19 to be a valid law under
Article 21.

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.

The importance of Maneka Gandhi is limitless and the way the apex court grabbed
the opportunity to expand the horizons of Article 21 is commendable. The benefits
that accrued to Indian citizens can be very well understood by the aftermath
of Maneka Gandhi when courts begin to insert every possible socio-economic and
cultural right in the scope of Article 21. The court in a catena of cases applying the
ratio of this judgment have held Right to clean Air[5], Right to Clean Water[6],
Right to freedom from Noise Pollution[7], Speedy Trial[8], Legal Aid[9], Right to
Livelihood[10], Right to Food[11], Right to Medical Care[12], Right to Clean
Environment[13]etc., as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty mentioned u/a
21.

In all these above cases it is this judgment which has paved the way for the courts
to interpret Article 21 in a manner which is beneficial for the common people. The
judiciary has through this judgment installed a new weapon of fulfilling the
objective set out in the Preamble in its arsenal.

Conclusion

The Maneka Gandhi judgment was a balanced judgment and is one of the best

judgments that Indian Supreme Court has ever given. The judgment’s greatest
feature was the interlinking it established between the provisions of Article 14, 19
& 21. By the virtue of this link the court made these provisions inseparable and a
single entity. Now any procedure to be valid has to meet all the requirements
mentioned under Article 14, 19 & 21. Therefore, it expanded the scope of personal
liberty exponentially and protected the constitutional and fundamental right to life
to a great extent.

The judgment while saved the citizens from unquestionable actions of Executive
also saved the sanctity of Parliamentary law when it did not strike down Section
10(3)(c) & 10(5) of 1967 Act. The court also reminded the authorities to only
rarely use the prerogative of section 10(5) so as to satisfy that their actions were
rational and well thought. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an
administrative order therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide,
unreasonable, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.

The judgment’s importance can be seen today also because the way in which the
bench construed Article 21 and expanded its horizons has given way for the
resolving of problems left unsolved by the Parliament. It’s quite evident that this
judgment has played an imperative role in construing Right to clean Air, right to
Clean Water, right to freedom 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 etc., as a part of Right to Life &
Personal liberty mentioned u/a 21.