Maneka Gandhi

VS
Union of India

14 Wednesday 2022
 CONTENT
1) Introduction:
2) Facts of the Case:
3) Provisions and relevant cases:
3.1) 1. Indian Passport Act, 1967:
3.2) 2. Constitution of India:
3.3) 5. K Gopalan Case:
4) Arguments before the A:
4.1) By Petitioner:
4.2) By Respondent:
5) Judgment:
6) Case Analysis:
7) Conclusion:
INTRODUCTION
The ruling of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, handed down by a
seven-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on January 25,
1978,[1] marked the beginning of a new period in the interpretation of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This decision
changed the face of the Indian Constitution and ushered in a new era
of personal liberty growth. The decision is a guiding light, bringing
new dimensions to the understanding of part 3 of the constitution’s
fundamental rights.

Since this is one of the Supreme Court’s most progressive rulings, the
principles established in this case are still applicable today. It marked
a change in the judiciary’s approach to interpreting the scope of the
right to life under the Constitution, from pedantic to purposeful.

K024
Facts of the Case:
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India is one of the most
landmark cases in the history of Indian law. In it, Maneka
Gandhi's passport was confiscated by the Government
of India under Section 10(3) of the Indian Passport Act,
1967 on the grounds of "Public Interest". Within seven
days of receiving her passport, the applicant was forced
to surrender it. The action of impounding of passport by
the government as well as for not providing any
explanation for the same was challenged through a writ
petition which was filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. Furthermore, it was claimed that
this action infringes the fundamental right provided
under Article 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution.
K024
 Provisions and relevant cases:

1. Indian Passport Act, 1967:

It was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 1967. It deals with travel issues, passport papers, and the departure
of Indian citizens from the country.

Section 10(3): This provision states that the government may impound or revoke a passport or travel document
if the passport authority deems it appropriate in the interests of the country in any way possible, as specified in
this provision.

Section 10: This section stipulates that whenever a passport authority makes an order under subsection 1 for
changing or canceling approvals, or under subsection 3 for canceling a passport or travel permit, it must draft a
statement of reason and produce it to the individual concerned on request unless it is in the country’s concern.]

K055
2. Constitution of India:

Article 14: This Article is present in part 3 of the Constitution of India

dealing with fundamental rights and provides us the right of “Equality
before Law”. According to this Article within India’s jurisdiction, the
state shall not deny anybody equality before the law or equal
protection under the law. Discrimination on the basis of religion, race,
caste, sex, or place of birth is prohibited.

Article 19: This Article deals with “Protection of certain rights

regarding freedom of speech, etc.” This article provides us the
freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India.

Article 21: This Article states that, “No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law.”
K055
3. K Gopalan Case :

Article 14: This Article is present in part 3 of the Constitution of India dealing
with fundamental rights and provides us the right of “Equality before Law”.
According to this Article within India’s jurisdiction, the state shall not deny
anybody equality before the law or equal protection under the law.
Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth is
prohibited.

Article 19: This Article deals with “Protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech, etc.” This article provides us the freedom of speech and
expression as well as the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory
of India.

Article 21: This Article states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

K077
 Arguments before the Court:
By Petitioner:

1. The “Right to Travel Abroad” is a subset of the ‘Right to Personal Liberty,’ and no
citizen can be denied this right unless he or she follows the legal procedure. Furthermore,
the Passports Act of 1967 makes no provision for the confiscation, revocation, or
impoundment of a passport’s holder. As a result, it is irrational and arbitrary.

2. Furthermore, by failing to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, the Central

Government violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the true meaning of
Article 21, as well as its purpose and security, must be created.

K077
By Respondent:

1. The Attorney General of India argued that the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ was
never protected by any clauses of Article 19(1), and that as a result, Article 19 is
unrelated to demonstrating the reasonableness of the Central Government’s
acts.

2. The Passport Law was not intended to infringe on anyone’s fundamental rights
in any way. Furthermore, the authorities should not be forced to explain whether
it is taking or impounding someone’s passport for the social benefit and national
interest. As a result, even though the statute violated Article 19, it could not be
struck down.

K076
 Judgement:
The Maneka Gandhi case is the latest in a long line of democratic victories. The
Supreme Court’s sitting bench ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner. This
decision followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the Satwant Singh case, in
which the Court ruled that the right to travel abroad falls under Article 21. The
judgment was given by a seven-judge bench of the apex court comprising CJI
M.H. Beg, Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L.
Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam and the major points are:

1. While the maxim used in Article 21 is “procedure defined by statute” rather

than “due process of law,” the court changed the face of the Constitution by
declaring that the procedure listed must be free of the vices of irrationality and
arbitrariness.

2. The court overruled the rule laid down in the case of Gopalan, stating that
the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 21 have a special relationship, and that
any law must pass the tests set forth in those provisions.

K076
 Case Analysis:
The Court has provided a new broad and liberal view of the Right to Life and
Personal Liberty. The court also put an end to the debate by ruling that each
Fundamental Right is mutually dependent on the others, rather than being distinct
from one another. By ignoring the black mark that the legislature was attempting to
depict, the court was able to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution makers.
Supreme Court's decision to seize the opportunity to broaden the scope of Article
21 is commendable. Benefits to Indian people can be seen in the aftermath of this
case, as courts begin to include any possible socioeconomic and cultural right
under Article 21. This Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India decision has paved the way
for courts to view Article 21 in a way that is advantageous to the general public.

K006
 Conclusion:

The most important aspect of the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India judgment was
the interconnection it established between the provisions of Articles 19, 14, and 21.
The Supreme Court made these clauses inseparable and into a single body by tying
them together. To be legal, any method must now meet all of the standards outlined
in these three documents. As a result, this Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
decision greatly expanded the definition of personal liberty while preserving the
basic and constitutional right to life. This decision, in addition to shielding people
from the Executive’s unchecked acts, also maintained the sanctity of parliamentary
law by refusing to strike down Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(4) of the 1967 Act (5).

K006
 THANK YOU

PRIYANK SHAH K055 | SHREY PATEL K076 | DHARMIN TANK K024 | RIDDHESH SANER K077 | AKSHAT KAPOOR K006