Constitutional Law

PROJECT REPORT

University Institute of Legal Studies,

Panjab University

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Of India

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Nehmat Ma’am Tiya Mehta

Roll No. 332/21
UILS, Panjab University B.Com LLB. (Hons.) (Sec-F)

1|P age
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the outset, I wish to thank the Almighty God for his immense blessings
and pray to him to continue to guide me on the path of my committed calling.

I deem it my proud privilege to express my indebtedness and sincere thanks

to all those who have in various ways, helped me in the successful completion
of the project and without their invaluable help this project would not have
been a reality.

I convey my sincere gratitude to my teachers at University Institute of Legal

Studies, Chandigarh who has been chosen me for this project and also provided
me help with knowledge, inspiration and information. It would not be possible
for me to complete this project without her encouragement, guidance, valuable
suggestions and affectionate help.

I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the University Institute of Legal Studies,
from where I have learnt the basics of Law and whose informal discussions,
intellectual support helped me in the entire duration of this work.

Tiya Mehta

Roll No. 332/21

B.Com LLB (Hons.)

3rd Semester, Section- F

2|P age
 DETAILS OF THE CASE

TITLE: Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

CITATION: 1978 SCR (2) 621

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25th January 1978

BENCH: M.H Beg (CJ), P.N Bhagwati, Y.V Chandrachud, V.R Krishna Iyer, N.L
Untwalia, S. Murtaza Ali.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Article 21 of Constitution of India

FACTS OF MANEKA GANDHI CASE:

1. The petitioner was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967.
2. By a letter dated 2.7.1977 she was asked to surrender her passport by the
Regional Passport Officer under section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act, 1967 in
the public interest.
3. After obtaining the letter, the petitioner wrote to Regional Passport Officer
inquiring the reason behind such an order.
4. The Regional Passport Officer failed to provide any reason for the surrender
order.
5. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India challenging the abovementioned order.

3|P age
 INTRODUCTION

This case analysis attempts to analyse the judgement of the Supreme Court in
the historical decision of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India reported in AIR
1978 SC 597 which expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and
changed the face of Indian polity and law.

'Personal Liberty' means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is
not authorised by law. This article is about Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India[1] , which is famously known as Maneka Gandhi's case or Personal
liberty case. This case is not only a landmark case for the interpretation of
Article 21 of Constitution of India but it also gave an entirely new point of look
to the Chapter III of the Constitution of India.

Prior to this case 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. This case just turned up pages and extended the protection
against legislative actions.

This case is regarded as one of the best judgements delivered by the apex court
as it was instrumental in restoring people's faith in the judiciary and
constitutional values. It was in this case that the "Golden triangle" rule was
firmly established by the SC and the court firmly cemented its seat as the
watchdog of democracy.

This decision which was delivered by a 7-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 25th January 1978, this decision, marked the development of a new
era with respect to the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed in the
Constitution. This decision altered the very face of the Indian Constitution and
marked a new era of development in the concept of personal liberty. The
decision stands as a beacon-light adding new dimensions to the interpretation of
the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

4|P age
 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as
per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport
Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner
was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of
the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.

2. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ

jurisdiction and contending that the State's act of impounding her
passport was a direct assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as
guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme
Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam[2] held that right to
travel abroad is well within the ambit of Article 21, although the extent to
which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.

3. The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are not to be

specified in the "interest of the general public". In response, the petitioner
filed a writ petition under Art 32 for violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution alleging that
Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.

5|P age
 Issues Before The Court

1. Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is

the extent of the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the
citizens by the Constitution of India?
2. Whether 'Right to Travel Abroad' is protected under the umbrella of
Article 21.
3. What is the Connection between the rights guaranteed under Article 14,
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
4. Determining the scope of " Procedure established by Law"
5. Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act
1967 is violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is whether such
legislation is a concrete Law?
6. Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in
contravention of principles of natural justice?

6|P age
Arguments Of The Petitioners:

Through the administrative order that seized the passport on 4th July 1977, the
State has infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights of freedom of
speech & expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to travel abroad and
the right to freedom of movement.

The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be read together and aren't
mutually exclusive. Only a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation
will lead to the observance of principles of natural justice and the true spirit of
constitutionalism.
India might not have adopted the American concept of the "due process of law",
nevertheless, the procedure established by law should be fair and just,
reasonable, and not be arbitrary.
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the
right to life & personal liberty guaranteed by this Article.

Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is invariably

acknowledged as a vital component of the principles of natural justice. Even if
these principles of natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the
provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of Fundamental Rights
embodies the very crux of these principles.

Contentions Of The Respondents:

7|P age
The respondent stated before the court that the passport was confiscated since
the petitioner had to appear before a government committee for a hearing.
The respondent asserted that the word 'law' under Article 21 can't be understood
as reflected in the fundamental rules of natural justice, emphasising the
principle laid down in the A K Gopalan case[3].

Article 21 contains the phrase "procedure established by law" & such procedure
does not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in
consonance with the Articles 14 & 19.

The framers of our Constitution had long debates on the American "due process
of law" versus the British "procedure established by law". The marked absence
of the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian Constitution clearly
indicates the constitution-makers' intentions.

8|P age
 Judgement Of The Court

1. The court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 is void because
it violates Article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and
undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution since it doesn't provide for an opportunity for the
aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since
it does not affirm to the word "procedure" as mentioned in the clause, and
the present procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court,
however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter, and
ruled that the passport would remain with the authorities till they deem
fit.

2. This immensely important judgement was delivered on 25th January

1978 and it altered the landscape of the Indian Constitution. This
judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realized the goal
of making India a welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The
unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench. Before the
enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the
passport whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle
abroad. Also, the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing the
passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.

3. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam the SC stated that:

Personal liberty in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and
travel abroad. Hence, no person can be deprived of such rights, except
through procedures established by law. Since the State had not made any
law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a
case, the confiscation of the petitioner's passport is in violation of Article
21 and its grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of
Article 14.

4. Further, clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides
that when the state finds it necessary to seize the passport or do any such
action in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its
security, its friendly relations with foreign countries, or for the interests
of the general public, the authority is required to record in writing the

9|P age
 reason of such act and on-demand furnish a copy of that record to the
holder of the passport.

5. The Central Government never did disclose any reasons for impounding
the petitioner's passport rather she was told that the act was done in the
interests of the general public whereas it was found out that her
presence was felt required by the respondents for the proceedings before
a commission of inquiry. The reason was given explicit that it was not
really necessarily done in the public interests and no ordinary person
would understand the reasons for not disclosing this information or the
grounds of her passport confiscation.

6. The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not
distinctive nor mutually exclusive." Any law depriving a person of his
personal liberty has to stand a test of one or more of the fundamental
rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, ex-
hypothesi must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be
projected in the procedure. The phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure
established by law" instead of due process of law which is said to have
procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality. There is a
clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice
i.e., audi alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair
and unjust even when a statute is silent on it.

7. It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of violation of any

rights of an individual and when the State had violated it. But that does
not mean, Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is exercisable only
in India and not outside. Merely because the state's action is restricted to
its territory, it does not mean that Fundamental Rights are also restricted
in a similar manner. It is possible that certain rights related to human
values are protected by fundamental rights even if it is not explicitly
written in our Constitution. For example, Freedom of the press is covered
under Article 19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned there.

The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free Speech and Expression
as both have different natures and characters.

A.K Gopalan was overruled 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

10 | P a g e
held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and are dependent on each
other.

Critical Analysis And Personal

Opinion:

The landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, which stands
as a bulwark of the Right of Personal Liberty granted by Article 21 of the
Constitution, started when the passport of the petitioner in this case, was
impounded by the authorities under the provisions of the Passport Act.

After this case the Supreme Court became the watchdog to protect the essence
of the Constitution and safeguard the intention of the constitutional assembly
who made it. The majority of judges opined that any legislation or section
should be just, fair and reasonable and in it's absence even the established or
prevailed law can be considered arbitrary.
The judges mandated that any law which deprives a person of his personal
liberty should stand the test of Article 21,14 as well as 19 of the Constitution.
Also principles of natural justice are sheltered under article 21 and therefore no
person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court. Further to declare
any state action or legislation invalid, the "golden triangle".

This arbitrary act of impounding the passport eventually led to the

pronouncement of a unanimous decision by a seven-judge bench of the apex
court comprising M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N.
Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam [4].

That, the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India is so

perfectly given by the Hon'ble Seven Judge Bench of Supreme court. That, the
very concept of fair procedure which was been in the case is what justice is.
Lastly, it is the spirit not the form of law that keeps the justice alive.

11 | P a g e
 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. This case is called as
Golden Triangle Case where article 14, 19 and 21 were challenged together and
it was appreciated by the apex court.

This decision restored the people's faith in the judicial system and a guarantee
that their fundamental rights will be protected. The court departed from its
earlier position in the AK Gopalan case which held that right to life and
personal liberty can be restricted by the procedure established by law even if it
is not fair and reasonable. In this case, this regressive view was discarded by the
court and held that that procedure established by law meant procedure that
eventually was reasonable fair and just.

This decision rendered void the plain and simple meaning of procedure
established by law and introduced for the first time the concept of due process
of law into the Indian constitution. The court also accepted that Right to Travel
Abroad as a very important component of Right to Liberty, if this right is not
granted, liberty is distorted. By this judgement, the court increased the scope of
Article 21 of the Constitution and made it the duty to interpret Article 21 in a
manner which serves the people's interest at most.

12 | P a g e