ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PSDA

CASE ANALYSIS
MENAKA GANDHI v UNION OF INDIA AIR 1978 SC 597

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Garv Virmani Ms. Ritika
Juneja
Enrolment No.: 02717703521 Assistant Professor
Semester: IV
Section: K

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
AU Block, Outer Ring Road, Haiderpur Badli
Water Works, Pitampura, Delhi – 110034
 2023

Petitioner: Menaka Gandhi

Respondent: Union of India
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Bench: M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N.
Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam

INTRODUCTION

The case of Menaka Gandhi v Union of India is a landmark judgment delivered

by the Supreme Court of India in 1978. This case established the doctrine of
"due process of law" as an essential aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judgment
expanded the scope of judicial review and emphasized the significance of
procedural safeguards in protecting fundamental rights. Menaka Gandhi, a
journalist, challenged the validity of an order passed by the Passport Authority
impounding her passport.
This case is regarded as one of the best judgements delivered by the apex court
as it was instrumental in restoring people's faith in the judiciary and
constitutional values. It was in this case that the "Golden triangle" rule was
firmly established by the SC and the court firmly cemented its seat as the
watchdog of democracy.

BACKGROUND

In 1977, the central government under the Prime Ministership of Morarji Desai
issued an order to impound the passport of Menaka Gandhi, an Indian citizen,
who was planning to travel abroad. The order was issued under the provisions
of the Passport Act, 1967. Menaka Gandhi challenged the order in the Supreme
Court, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and
21 of the Indian Constitution.
The idea of "personal liberty" was first brought to attention in the case of A.K.
Gopalan, which was presented before the Supreme Court. The petitioner in this
case was detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. The petitioner
argued that his detention violated his fundamental right to freedom of
movement as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d), which is an essential aspect of
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The main issue in this case
was whether "due process of law" is the same as the "procedure established by
law" and whether it adheres to the principles of natural justice. However, the
Supreme Court, in this case, narrowly interpreted personal liberty to only
include the freedom of one's physical body. Consequently, the application of
principles of "jus naturale" (natural justice) was rejected by the court.
Nevertheless, this restrictive interpretation of the term "personal liberty" was
not followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions. In the case of
Kharak Singh v State of U.P., it was held that "personal liberty" is not limited to
physical confinement but also includes a comprehensive term that encompasses
various rights related to personal freedom, beyond those guaranteed under
Article 19(1).

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner, received her passport on June 1, 1976 in

accordance with the Passport Act of 1967. However, on July 2, 1977, the
Regional Passport Office in New Delhi ordered her to surrender her
passport without providing any explanation for this arbitrary decision
made by the Ministry of External Affairs, citing public interest.
2. The petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court, invoking its writ
jurisdiction and arguing that the government's action of impounding her
passport directly violated her Right to Personal Liberty, which is
protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is worth mentioning that in
the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam, the Supreme Court
had previously ruled that the right to travel abroad falls within the scope
of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act restricted this
particular right remained unclear.
3. However, the authorities responded by stating that the reasons for the
passport impoundment could not be disclosed in the "interest of the
 general public." In response to this, the petitioner filed a writ petition
under Article 32, alleging a violation of her fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and claiming
that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was unconstitutional.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The issues discussed in this case were as follows:

I. Whether Article 21 “Right to personal liberty” in its ambit covers the
right to go abroad as a part of it?
II. Whether the Section 10(3)(c) of Passports Act, as mentioned in Article
21 prescribe a “procedure” before the infringement of their fundamental
right?
III. Whether the Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act is constitutionally
valid?
IV. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Passport Authority were in
transgression of principle of natural justice?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

A. MENAKA GANDHI (PETITIONER)

 The petitioner contented state violated the Petitioner's fundamental rights,

including freedom of speech and expression, the right to life and personal
liberty, the right to travel abroad, and the right to freedom of movement,
by confiscating their passport through an administrative order on July 4,
1977.
 It is important to consider the provisions stated in Articles 14, 19, and 21
collectively, as they should not be treated as separate and independent.
Only by reading and interpreting them together can we ensure the
principles of natural justice and uphold the genuine essence of
constitutionalism.
 India may not have embraced the American concept of "due process of
law," but it is still necessary for the procedure established by law to be
fair, just, reasonable, and free from arbitrariness.

 The provision of Section 10(3)(c) in the Passport Act infringes upon

Article 21 by violating the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed
by this Article. The principle of "audi alteram partem," which means the
right to be heard, is universally recognized as an essential element of the
principles of natural justice. Even though these principles of natural
justice are not explicitly mentioned in any constitutional provisions, they
form the essence of the spirit behind Fundamental Rights.

B. UNION OF INDIA (RESPONDENT)

 The respondent in court mentioned that the passport was taken away
because the petitioner needed to attend a government committee hearing.
The respondent argued that the term 'law' in Article 21 should not be
interpreted in the context of fundamental principles of natural justice,
highlighting the principle established in the A K Gopalan case.

 Article 21 includes the phrase "procedure established by law," and this

procedure is not required to meet the standards of reasonability or align
with Articles 14 and 19.

 During the constitutional debates, the framers of our Constitution

extensively discussed the American concept of "due process of law"
versus the British concept of "procedure established by law." The
deliberate exclusion of the due process of law from the Indian
Constitution clearly indicates the intentions of the constitution-makers.
 JUDGMENT

 The court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 is void because
it violates Article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and
undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution since it doesn't provide for an opportunity for the
aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since
it does not affirm to the word "procedure" as mentioned in the clause, and
the present procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court,
however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter, and
ruled that the passport would remain with the authorities till they deem
fit.

 This immensely important judgement was delivered on 25th January

1978 and it altered the landscape of the Indian Constitution. This
judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realized the goal
of making India a welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The
unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench. Before the
enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the
passport whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle
abroad. Also, the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing the
passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.

 In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam the SC stated that:

 Personal liberty in its ambit, also includes the right of locomotion and
travel abroad. Hence, no person can be deprived of such rights, except
through procedures established by law. Since the State had not made any
law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a
case, the confiscation of the petitioner's passport is in violation of Article
21 and its grounds being unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of
Article 14.

 Further, clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides
that when the state finds it necessary to seize the passport or do any such
 action in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its
security, its friendly relations with foreign countries, or for the interests of
the general public, the authority is required to record in writing the reason
of such act and on-demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of
the passport.

 The Central Government never did disclose any reasons for impounding
the petitioner's passport rather she was told that the act was done in the
interests of the general public whereas it was found out that her presence
was felt required by the respondents for the proceedings before a
commission of inquiry. The reason was given explicit that it was not
really necessarily done in the public interests and no ordinary person
would understand the reasons for not disclosing this information or the
grounds of her passport confiscation.

 The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not
distinctive nor mutually exclusive." Any law depriving a person of his
personal liberty has to stand a test of one or more of the fundamental
rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, ex-
hypothesi must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be
projected in the procedure. The phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure
established by law" instead of due process of law which is said to have
procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality. There is a
clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice
i.e., audi alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair and
unjust even when a statute is silent on it.

 It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of violation of any

rights of an individual and when the State had violated it. But that does
not mean, Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is exercisable only
in India and not outside. Merely because the state's action is restricted to
its territory, it does not mean that Fundamental Rights are also restricted
in a similar manner. It is possible that certain rights related to human
values are protected by fundamental rights even if it is not explicitly
written in our Constitution. For example, Freedom of the press is covered
under Article 19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned there.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The judgment in the case of Menaka Gandhi v Union of India is considered a

landmark decision as it strengthened the protection of individual rights in India.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 as encompassing principles of
natural justice reaffirmed the significance of procedural fairness in restricting
fundamental rights.

The court's ruling emphasized that the right to travel abroad is not just a
statutory right but an essential aspect of personal liberty protected by the
Constitution. This recognition ensured that any restrictions on this right must be
reasonable, fair, and based on valid reasons. The judgment clarified that national
security concerns cannot be used as a blanket justification to curtail individual
rights without following due process.

Furthermore, the judgment expanded the scope of judicial review and held that
the court has the power to examine administrative decisions for compliance
with constitutional principles. This provided individuals with a stronger
mechanism to challenge arbitrary or unfair actions of the government.

Overall, the judgment in Menaka Gandhi v Union of India played a crucial role
in safeguarding the rights of individuals in India. It underscored the significance
of due process, procedural fairness, and the protection of personal liberties,
setting an important precedent for future cases involving the restriction of
fundamental rights.
 CONCLUSION

The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new and highly varied
interpretation to the meaning of 'life and personal liberty' under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and
expression to the effect that the right is no longer restricted by the territorial
boundaries of the country.

In fact, it extends to almost the entire world. Thus the case saw a high degree of
judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of expanding horizons of
fundamental rights in general, and Article 21 in particular. This case is called as
Golden Triangle Case where article 14, 19 and 21 were challenged together and
it was appreciated by the apex court.

This decision restored the people's faith in the judicial system and a guarantee
that their fundamental rights will be protected. The court departed from its
earlier position in the AK Gopalan case which held that right to life and
personal liberty can be restricted by the procedure established by law even if it
is not fair and reasonable. In this case, this regressive view was discarded by the
court and held that that procedure established by law meant procedure that
eventually was reasonable fair and just.

This decision rendered void the plain and simple meaning of procedure
established by law and introduced for the first time the concept of due process
of law into the Indian constitution. The court also accepted that Right to Travel
Abroad as a very important component of Right to Liberty, if this right is not
granted, liberty is distorted. By this judgement, the court increased the scope of
Article 21 of the Constitution and made it the duty to interpret Article 21 in a
manner which serves the people's interest at most.