Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Seven-Judge Constitution Bench
Case Summary
FACTS OF THE CASE
Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967, on June 1, 1976.On July 4, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, issued a notice under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act asking her to surrender her passport "in public interest."No reasons were provided for the impounding of her passport, and her request for a hearing was denied. Maneka Gandhi challenged the decision, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Equality before law), 19 (Freedom of speech and expression, right to travel abroad), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).
ISSUES
Whether the right to travel abroad is covered under the ambit of "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the procedure for impounding the passport violated Article 21, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.
Whether the impugned action violated the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.
Whether the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 should also meet the test of reasonableness and fairness.
RELEVANT ARTICLES
Article 14 (Right to Equality):This guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary actions by the state. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that arbitrariness violates equality, and all government actions must be fair, reasonable, and just.
Article 19 (Protection of Freedoms):This article ensures various freedoms, including freedom of speech, movement, and profession. The right to travel abroad was linked to these freedoms. The Court emphasized that restrictions on these rights must be reasonable and serve a legitimate purpose, failing which they would be unconstitutional.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty):This provides protection against deprivation of life or liberty except through a fair and just procedure. The Court expanded the meaning of "personal liberty" to include the right to travel abroad and ruled that the procedure followed by the government must be non-arbitrary and fair.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in the Maneka Gandhi case, expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that the right to life and personal liberty is not limited to mere physical existence but includes the right to live with dignity and the freedom to travel abroad. The Court interpreted the phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21 to mean a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, rejecting any arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful actions. It recognized the right to travel abroad as an integral part of personal liberty, emphasizing that any law or executive action restricting this right must meet the tests of fairness and reasonableness. The Court further ruled that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, are inherent in the procedure under Article 21. The government’s failure to provide reasons for impounding the passport and to offer Maneka Gandhi an opportunity to be heard violated these principles. Lastly, the Court highlighted the interrelation of Articles 14, 19, and 21, asserting that these fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive and must be read together. Any law or executive action affecting personal liberty must satisfy the tests of reasonableness under Article 14, freedom under Article 19, and fairness under Article 21.
-Kush Kuthiala
Himachal Pradesh National Law University
Comments