MANEKA GANDHI

V
UNION OF INDIA

By
Manoj V Amirtharaj
MENAKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA

CASE MAP
1. Facts.
2. Arguments .
3. Analysis .
4. Judgement.

2
INTRODUCTION
• Date of judgement : 25/1/1978
• Citation : 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR(2)621
• Bench : Beg, M Hameedullah(CJ) ,
Chandrachud , Y.V. Bhagwathi, P.N
kishnaiyar, V.R Untwalia, N.L Fazalali S.M
and Kailasan P.S .

9/3/20XX 3
ARTICLE 21 :
• Article 21 of Indian constitution says “ no person shall be deprived of
his life and personel liberty except according to procedure established
by law”.
• According to Dicey :- Right to personnel liberty as understood in
England means in substance “a person’s right not to be subject to
imprisonment in any manner , arrest or other physical coercion in any
manner that doesn’t admit of legal justification”

4
CASE BACKGROUND
• Maneka Gandhi ‘s case is not only a landmark case for interpretation of
article 21 but it also gave an entirely new viewpoint to look at the part
III of the constitution.
• Prior to Maneka Gandhi decision, article 21 guaranteed the right to life
and personal liberty only against the personal liberty only against the
arbitrary action of the executive and not from the legislative action.
• Broadly speaking, what this case did was extend this protection against
legislative action too.
• This case is always read and linked with A.K Gopalan case, because it
revokes around the concept of “ personal liberty Which first came up for
consideration in the A.K Gopalan case.
5
FACTS
• A passport issued to Maneka Gandhi on 1/06/1976 under the passport
Act 1967.
• The regional Passport officer, new Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977
addressed to Maneka Gandhi , in which she was asked to surrender her
passport under section 10(3)(c) of the passport Act in public interest ,
within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
• The petitioner immediately addressed a letter to the regional passport
officer requesting him to furnish a copy of the statement of the reasons
for making the order as provided in section 10(5).

6
FACTS

• A reply was sent by the government of india, ministry of external affairs

on 6/7/1977 stating inter alia that on the government decided “in the
interst of the general public “ not to furnish her copy of the statement of
reason for making of the order.
• The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition challenging
action of the government in impounding her passport and declining to
give reasons for doing so.

7
ISSUE IN THE CASE
• Whether right to go abroad isa part of right topersonal liberty by Article
21.
• Whether the passport Act prescribes a procedure as required by the
Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the
said Article.
• Whether section 10(3)(c) of the passport act is violative of article
14,19(1)(a), and 21 of the constitution.
• Whether the important order of the regional passport officers is in
contravention of the principle of natural justice.

8
A.K GOPALAN CASE
• The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention on the ground that
it was violative of his right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)
(d), which is the very essence of personal liberty guaranteed by article
21 of the constitution.
• It is pertained to maintain here that in A.K Gopalan v. state of madras,
the attention of the supreme court was drawen to the legislation history
of article 21 which showed why the expression “ due process of law”
was replaced by “ procedure established by law “.

9
KHARAK SINGH CASE
• Kharak singh case, it was held that “ personal liberty” was not only
limited to bodily restriction but was used as compendious term
including written itself all the verieties of rights which go to make up
the personal liberty of man other than those dealt within article 19(1).

10
JUDGEMENT
• To the extend to which section 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967,
authorizes the passport authority to impound a passport in interest of the
general public, it is violative of article 14 sinces it confers vague and
undefined power on passport authority.
• Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power snice it doesn’t
for a hearing to the passport before the passport impound.
• Section 10(3)(c) is violative of the article 21 of the constitution snice it
doesn’t prescribe “ procedure” within the meaning of that article 21 and
the procedure practised is worst

11
• Section 10(3)(c)is against article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) it permits
restrictons to be imposed on rights guaranteed by these articles even
though such restrictions can’t be imposed under article 19(2) and 19(6).
• A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.

12
 MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA
Doctrine of post
decisional hearing
The idea of Post Decision Hearing has been developed to maintain a balance
between administrative efficiency and fairness to individuals.[5] In Post
Decisional Hearing, an individual is given an opportunity to be heard after a
tentative decision has been taken by the authorities. In certain situations, it is not
feasible for the authorities to have a normal pre-decisional hearing and decisions
are being taken on first instance before providing the individual to present his
views, than it would be consider reasonable if the authorities provide Post
Decision Hearing as well as it will be in compliance with the Principle of Natural
Justice. In Post Decision Hearing, the prominent point is that authorities must take
only a tentative decision and not a final decision without hearing the party
concerned.[6]

The fundamental objective is that when a final decision is taken than it becomes
difficult for the authorities to reverse it and the purpose of providing a fair hearing
gets defeated, therefore, for an accused it turns out to be a less effective than pre
decision hearing. The similar proposition was ingeminated by the Apex Court.[7]
With the introduction of this concept, the prospect of Principle of Natural Justice
has widened.

13
 MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA

THANK YOU
MANOJ V AMIRTHARAJ

14