Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

Submitted by
Aditya Krishna Srivastava
Division A Roll No. 18010224007 Class of 2018-2023

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In
January, 2020

Under the guidance of

Ms. Charvi Kumar
Assistant Professor
 CERTIFICATE

The project titled “Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for Legal Reasoning and Logic as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work
carried out under the guidance of Mrs.Charvi Kumar from December to February The Research
work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material borrowed from
other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly acknowledged. I understand
that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date
 INDEX

S.No Title Pg No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. FACTS 1
3. RELEVANT LAWS AND ISSUES 1-2
4. JUDGEMENT 2-3
5. ANALYSIS 3-5
6. CONCLUSION 5
 INTRODUCTION,

The topic assigned to the researcher is Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India1. It was a landmark
judgement in the field of Constitutional Law and changed the way courts looked at our
Fundamental Rights. Before the Maneka Gandhi judgement, our fundamental rights, especially
Article 14 – Right to Equality, Article 19 – Fundamental Freedoms and Article 21 – Right to Life
and Liberty were read as three different articles with different functions for each of them 2. This
view of Article 19 and 21 lead to the court passing a controversial judgement which made the
law of Preventive Detention Act, 1950 valid wherein the petitioners fundamental right under
19(1)(d) was taken away by the court. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the researcher will
discuss as to how the courts differed their opinion from the one which was given in AK Gopalan
vs State of Madras and gave Indian Jurisprudence a new link between the three Article, 14, 19
and 21 and the principle of “due process of law”.

The Judgement was passed by a bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices, M.H. Beg, Y.V.
Chadrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishnaiyer, N.L. Untwalia, S.M. Fazalali and P.S. Kailasam. The
judgement was authored by then Chief Justice M.H. Beg and is 146 pages long.

FACTS

The petitioner in this case, Ms. Maneka Gandi was a journalist whose passport was issued on
June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act, 1967. On July 2nd 1977, the Regional Passport Officer,
New Delhi, ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport by a letter. After enquiring for a
reason for the surrendering, The Ministry of External Affairs then headed by Yashwantrao
Chavan, declined to give her any substantial reason and stated that the steps were taken “in the
interest of the general public”.

Maneka Gandhi therefore file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that the
seizure of her passport was a gross violation of her fundamental rights; specifically Article 14
(Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right
to Life and Liberty) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

RELEVANT LAWS AND ISSUES

I. Constitutional Law
- Article 14 – Right to Equality

1 AIR 1978 SC 597

2 AK Gopalan vs State of Madras, 1950 SC 27
1|Page
 - Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom to Move Freely
- Article 21- Right to Life and Liberty
II. Passport Act, 1967, ss. 3,5,6,10(3), 10(5)
III. Principles of Natural Justice – The Principle of Audi Alterum Partum
IV. Precedents
- A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras
- State of Orissa vs. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Dei, 1967 AIR 1269
- ADM Jabalpur vs. S.S. Shukla, 1976 (2) SCC 521
- Hardhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCR 778
- R.C. Cooper vs. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564
V. Issues
- Is there any nexus between the provisions mentioned under Articles 14, 19 & 21.
- Scope of the word “Procedure Established by Law.”
- Whether right to travel abroad resides in Article 21.
- Whether a legislative law that takes away Right to life is reasonable.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act gives the State undefined and vague
powers. Therefore, the provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it does not
provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. The act was also deemed
violative of Article 21 since it does not conform to the word “procedure” as mentioned in the
clause.

The courts additionally covered the following factors in the judgement

1. The Government should ordinarily provide reasons in every case and should rarely use the
prerogative of Section 10(5) of the Act.
2. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) of the Passports Act 1967 is relating to
administrative orders and are therefore open to challenge on the various grounds such as
mala fide, unreasonableness, denial of principles of natural justice and ultra vires of the
Indian Constitution.
3. The Court overruled Gopalan by stating that there is a unique relationship between the
provisions of Article 14, 19 and 21 and that all laws must pass the tests of the said
provision. The court said that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and dependant
on each other.

2|Page
 4. The court upheld the ruling in Satwant Singh3 and said that it is within the scope of the
guarantees which are mentioned under Article 21.
5. The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution are not limited
or restricted to the territorial limits of India.

ANALYSIS

- JUDGE’S REASONING

The main issue in this case which was to be adjudicated by the court was the constitutionality
of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act. The Judge in his judgement stated that it is violative
of Article 14, i.e. Right to Equality. The court stated that since the section is vague in it’s
wording it gives the State more power than it should have. The vagueness leaves a lot of scope
for the executive to interpret it in whichever way they want, and hence would get away with a
lot of actions under the guise of varied interpretation. The words ‘deems it necessary’ a give
the authorities the complete freedom to act in any way they want without giving a proper
justification for their answers.

Audi Alteram Partem is one of the three pillars of natural justice. It translates to, “hear the
other side”. It refers to the fact that no action can be taken against a person without actually
hearing the other sides point of view or defence. If this principle is not applied then there is
always a possibility that the conclusion will be extremely biased towards one individual. The
judge explicitly in his judgement specified that the arbitrariness of the actions is totally against
the principles of natural justice, specifically the principle of Audi Alterum Partem. The Court
stated that it could never be the intention of the Constitution makers to give the executive such
power that it can use it powers to take the Fundamental Rights of the citizens which ironically
are the State’s to protect only.

The court then heard about the contentions, as to whether the impounding of her passport was
violative of her Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The court
accepted the fact that travelling abroad and public speaking, dancing, literature, art, etc are
covered under Article 19 and thus if the government takes any step which results into the
hampering of the free usage of that right then it will be violative of the person’s Fundamental
Rights. However, the petitioner could not prove in the court that she was going for an official
tour when her passport was impounded. Thus, it was not violative of her Fundamental Right.

3 (1967) 3 SCR 525

3|Page
 The judge then moved on to linking the Right to Travel abroad with the Fundamental Freedom
of movement. The court referred to the majority judgement in Sartwant Singh Sawhney vs. D.
Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi and Ors. 4 where it
was adjudged that Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion and trrvel abroad under Article
21 and therefore an action as arbitrary as the one made in the current case also resulted into
the violation of Article 21 of the Petitioner.

On further detailed analysis, the court said that Article 21 is not to be read in isolation and that
all the violations and procedural requirements under Article21 are also to be tested for Article
14 and Article 19 also, forming the fundamental idea of the Golden Triangle.

The court stated that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19. It overruled the judgement in AK
Gopalan vs State of Madras and made a relationship between Article 19 and Article 21. The
court said that Right to Life and Personal Liberty would obviously also include the Fundamental
Freedoms guaranteed under Article 19. Our freedom to move about freely is included in our
right to personal liberty and therefore the two articles are to be read together and not in
isolation. The court said that, “The law must therefore now be settled that Article 21 does not
exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person
of personal liberty, and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right
conferred by Article 21 such a law in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right
under Article 19 would have to meet the challenges of that Article.”Thus a law “depriving a
person of ‘personal liberty’ has not only to stand the test” of Article 21, but it must stand the
test of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution as well.

- CRTIQUE

The court took a strong step of overruling the regressive decision of Gopalan. In this case the
court unanimously came harshly upon the contention of the State that the procedure
established by law need not be just, fair and reasonable. The court gave us the distinction
between the phrases, “procedure established by law” and “due process of law”. The court
stated that India followed “procedure established by law” which meant that even if an act is
done by following all the procedure given in law, the procedure in itself should be free of
discrimination and arbitrariness. The court by resting the debate that the Fundamental Rights

4 (1967) 3 SCR 525

4|Page
 are not distinct from each other but mutually dependent on others, gave a blanket protection
to all citizens from the arbitrary acts of the State.

More than the exact judgement, the obiter of the case, which increased the ambit of Article
21, and made it an organic article which encompasses multiple rights which have not been
covered other articles paved way for a new era of jurisprudence in India.

The court included by keeping Maneka Gandhi as precedent, used it to provide new rights to
the people of India;

i. Right to Clean Air- M.C. Mehta vs Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 354
ii. Right to Clean Water- M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and Ors, 1988 AIR 1115
iii. Right to Freedom from Noise Pollution- In re: Noise Pollution (2005) 5 SCC 733
iv. Speedy Trial- Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979
AIR 1369
v. Legal Aid- Khatri and Ors. vs State of Bihar and Ors, 1981 SCR 2 408
vi. Right to Livelihood- Olga Tellis and Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR
180
vii. Right to Food- Kishne Patnayak vs State of Odisha, AIR 1989 SC 677
viii. Right to Medical Care- Pt. Paramanand Katara vs. Union of India and Ors., 1989 AIR
203
ix. Right to Clean Environment- Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v.State Of
U.P..&Ors. 1985 AIR 652.
- CONCLUSION

“ The Maneka Gandhi judgment was a balanced judgment and is one of the best judgments that
Indian Supreme Court has ever given. The judgment’s greatest feature was the interlinking it
established between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21. By the virtue of this link the court made
these provisions inseparable and a single entity. Now any procedure to be valid has to meet all
the requirements mentioned under Article 14, 19 & 21. Therefore, it expanded the scope of
personal liberty exponentially and protected the constitutional and fundamental right to life to a
great extent.

The judgment while saved the citizens from unquestionable actions of Executive also saved the
sanctity of Parliamentary law when it did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) of 1967 Act.
The court also reminded the authorities to only rarely use the prerogative of section 10(5) so as

5|Page
to satisfy that their actions were rational and well thought. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) &
10(5) is an administrative order therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of mala fide,
unreasonable, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.

The judgment’s importance can be seen today also because the way in which the bench construed
Article 21 and expanded its horizons has given way for the resolving of problems left unsolved by
the Parliament. It’s quite evident that this judgment has played an imperative role in construing
Right to clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial,
Standard Education, Fair Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care,
Right to Clean Environment etc., as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty mentioned u/a 21.”

6|Page