Citation:

1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Bench:

M. Hameedullah Beg (CJ), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam

---

Introduction:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere freedom from physical restraint but includes various other freedoms necessary for a dignified life.

---

Facts of the Case:

• Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was issued a passport on June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act, 1967.
• On July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, issued a notice impounding her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, citing “public interest” as the reason.
• When she requested a copy of the reasons for the decision, the government refused, citing national interest.
• Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act and the violation of her fundamental rights.

---

Issues:

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable.
3. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
4. Whether the principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders like passport impoundment.

---

Arguments of the Parties:

Petitioner’s Arguments (Maneka Gandhi):

1. The right to travel abroad is an essential part of personal liberty under Article 21, and its deprivation without a fair procedure is unconstitutional.
2. The impugned provision (Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act) is arbitrary and vague, violating Article 14 (right to equality).
3. The procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable—not arbitrary—under Article 21.
4. The government’s refusal to provide reasons violates principles of natural justice.
5. The restriction on her passport violated her freedom of speech and profession under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

1. The right to travel abroad is not a fundamental right under Article 21.
2. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and national security.
3. The principles of natural justice can be excluded in matters affecting national security.
4. The procedure prescribed by the Passport Act is sufficient to meet constitutional requirements.

---

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maneka Gandhi, declaring that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad.
• The Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that any procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, and must not be arbitrary.
• It held that any law restricting personal liberty must satisfy the tests of Articles 14 and 19, making fundamental rights interconnected.
• The Court emphasized the principles of natural justice, stating that the government must provide a fair hearing before impounding a passport.
• Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act was upheld but was required to be read in a way that ensures fairness and procedural safeguards.

---

Precedents and Legal Principles Established:

1. Expanded Article 21: The right to personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad.
2. Interconnection of Fundamental Rights: Any law affecting personal liberty must comply with Articles 14, 19, and 21.
3. Fairness in Procedure: Any procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.
4. Natural Justice: Even in administrative decisions, principles of natural justice must be followed.
5. Judicial Review: Courts have the power to ensure that laws do not violate fundamental rights.

---

Conclusion:

The Maneka Gandhi case revolutionized Indian constitutional law by ensuring that due process is an essential component of personal liberty. The judgment played a crucial role in strengthening judicial review, ensuring that laws restricting fundamental rights must be fair and non-arbitrary.

This case remains a cornerstone for the interpretation of fundamental rights in India, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in protecting personal liberty against arbitrary state actions.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I