Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India On 25 January 1978

TITLE: Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India On 25 January 1978

BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE M. HAMEEEDULLAH, CHANDRACHUD , Y.V., BHAGWASTI, P.N KRISHNAIYER V.R.UNTWALIA N.L FAZALALI, S.M, KAILASAM P.S.

 CITATION: 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

AUTHOR: M H Beg

PETITIONER: Maneka Gandhi

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JEDGEMENT: 25^th January 1978

CASE FACTS: In the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case, the petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist who was about to travel to another country for some of her official business. Because of this purpose, it was applied for the passport by the petitioner under the Indian Passports Act of 1967. Late on June 1, 1976, her passport was released. Thereafter, on July 4, 1977 a letter was received by the petitioner from the regional passport officer informing that the passport of the petitioner was confiscated, by the decision of 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. Maneka Gandhi wrote a letter to the regional passport officer right away, demanding a copy of the statement about the reason for the order, as required by section 10 of the Constitution. On the 6th of July 1977, the government of India’s ministry of external affairs responded, saying that the government had agreed not to provide her with a copy of the statement of reasons for the order “in the interest of the general public.”
 ISSUES: 1. Whether the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ covered under the umbrella of Article 21?

2. What is the relationship between the rights granted by India’s Constitution Articles 14, 19, and 21?

3. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 a violation of Fundamental Rights, and if so, is such legislation a concrete Law?

ARGUMENTS 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.

3. Fundamental Rights should be read in accordance with each other to uphold the intent of the Constituent Assembly and to give effect to the spirit of our constitution, and in this case, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India must be read together.

4. In such circumstances, Article 22 provides immunity from arrest and detention. In this case, the government unlawfully detained the applicant inside the country by seizing her passport without providing her with any justification.

ARGUMENTS 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.

3. Article 21 is rather broad, and it includes the provisions of Articles 14 and 19. Article 21 declares a statute illegal only if it expressly violates Articles 14 and 19. As a result, the legislation governing passports is not unconstitutional.

4. Article 21 includes the phrase “procedure defined by statute,” and such a procedure does not have to pass the reasonability test.

this verdict, which will help it achieve the Preamble’s goal.

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.

3. The court decided that the term “personal liberty” could not be interpreted in a narrow and strict context. According to the court, personal liberty must be considered in a diverse and liberal context. As a result, the meaning of Article 21 has been broadened. The court ordered that future courts widen Article 21’s horizons to include all Fundamental Rights and stop construing it in a narrower context.

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).

SUBMITTED BY MANSHI AGARWAL