Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of

India(1978)
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT FOR
BUSINESS

SUBASH TRIPURA
MBA 2nd Semester (2019-2021)
Section : A
ID NO : 19IUT0160022
 The Court
Name of the Parties Name Of the Judges
• M.H. Beg, C.J.
Petitioner :Mrs. Maneka • P.N. Bhagwati
Ghandhi • Y.V. Chandrachud
• V.R. Krishna Iyer
Respondent : Union of • N.L. Untwalia
India(UOI) and Others • P.S. Kailasam
• S.Murtaza Fazal Ali
BACKGROUND
• Article 21 of the Constitution says,- “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
• Maneka Gandhi‟s case is not only a landmark case for the
interpretation of Article 21 but it also gave an entirely
new view paoint to look at the Chapter III of the
Constitution. Prior to Maneka Gandhi‟s decision, Article
21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty only
against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from
the legislative action. Broadly speaking, what this case did
was extend this protection against legislative action too.
 FACTS
• The petitioner was issued a passport on June 1, 1976
under the Passport Act, 1967.
• • On the 4th of July 1977, the petitioner received a
letter dated 2nd July, 1977, from the Regional
Passport Officer Delhi intimating to her that it was
decided by the Government of India to impound her
passport under s. 10(3)(c) of the Act "in public
interest".
• • The petitioner was required to surrender her
passport within 7 days from the receipt of that letter.
 ISSUES

 1. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates

the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
 2. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates
the Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution?
 3. Is Freedom of Speech and expression confined to
the territory of India ?
 4. Is the right to go abroad covered by article 19(a) or
(g) of the Indian Constitution?
 5. Whether the challenged order is intra vires Section
10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967?
 6. Is the challenged order Constitutionally valid?
 JUDEMENTS
 (1) To the extent to which Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967
authorizes the passport authority to impound a passport in the interests
of the general public, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since
it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
 (2) Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does
not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the
passport is impounded.
 (3) 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 practised is worst.
 (4) 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
 A new doctrine of Post decisional theory was evolved.
 CONCLUSION
The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new
and highly varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘life and
personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it
expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and expression
to the effect that the right is no longer restricted by the
territorial boundaries of the country. In fact, it extends to
almost the entire world. Thus the case saw a high degree of
judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of expanding
horizons of fundamental rights in general, and Article 21 in
particular.