NAME OF THE CASE: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
PETITIONER: Maneka Gandhi
RESPONDENT: Union of India
CITATIONS: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
BENCH: M. Hameedullah Beg (then, Chief Justice of India), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S.M. Fazalali, P.S. Kailasam
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 January 1978
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
FACTS:
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi was a journalist and her passport was issued on 1 June 1976 under the Passports Act, 1967. The Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, on 2 July 1977, ordered the petitioner to impound her passport under Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act. The petitioner requested the Regional Passport Officer to furnish a copy of reason. On 6 July 1977, the Ministry of External Affairs declined to furnish reasons in the ‘interest of the general public’. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of the government of impounding the passport and declining to furnish reasons. The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating that impounding of her passport was a violation of fundamental rights.
ISSUES:
The issues raised in the case are:
- Whether the right to travel aboard is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- What is the scope of ‘Procedure established by law’?
- Whether Section 10(3) (c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is in violation of Fundamental Rights?
- Whether there is any connection between Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that the Government was not justified in withholding the explanations for impounding the passport from the petitioner (Maneka Gandhi). The important points of the judgment are:
- Right to travel abroad comes under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that nobody shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad comes under ‘personal liberty’. The court held that scope of ‘personal liberty’ has to be construed in a broader and liberal sense.
- The term ‘procedure established by law’ refers that procedure should be free from arbitrariness and irrationality. The court held that mere prescription of some kind of procedure is not enough to comply with the mandate of Article 21. A procedure must be fair or just. It must comply with the principles of Natural Justice.
- Section 10(3) (c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is not in violation of the fundamental rights i.e. Article 19, 21 and 14. The court held that since the provision provides an opportunity of being heard, it is not in violation of fundamental rights. The court rejected the contention of the petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) that the phrase ‘in the interests of the general public’ is not vague.
- The court overruled the case of ‘A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27’ and held that Article 14, 19 and 21 are connected to each other. Article 21 does not exclude Article 19. Any law depriving a person of personal liberty has to stand the test of Article 21, 19 and 14. Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India are golden triangle. There is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The court suggested that the government should provide reasons in every case and should cause in writing the reason and furnish a copy of the record to the holder of the passport.
CONCLUSION:
The case ‘Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India’ is a very important and landmark judgment. It broadened the aspect of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life is not a mere animal existence but it includes living with dignity. This case has a powerful impact on the Constitution of India.
This blog is written by Jyotsna Singh, Banasthali Vidyapith
SOME OF HER BLOGS-
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
