Case Summary: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

1. Case Title: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
2. Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
3. Court: Supreme Court of India
4. 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, JJ.
5. Date of Judgment: January 25, 1978
6. Relevant Provisions: Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India; Passport Act, 1967

Brief Facts

Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and social activist, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967. On July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer issued an order requiring her to surrender the passport citing ‘public interest’ as the reason, but without providing any detailed justification. Gandhi filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that this arbitrary action violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech and movement), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).

Issues

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is protected under the scope of ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21?
   2. Whether the ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21 can permit arbitrary or unfair actions?
   3. Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are separate rights or must be read together as a unified guarantee of liberty?
   4. Whether the State is obliged to provide reasons and an opportunity of being heard before restricting personal liberty?

Arguments

Petitioner (Maneka Gandhi):

• The order violated her right to personal liberty and freedom of movement.
• Article 21 requires not just any procedure, but one that is just, fair, and reasonable.
• Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a golden triangle and cannot be interpreted in isolation.
• The absence of reasons and denial of a hearing amounted to arbitrariness.

Respondent (Union of India):

• The Government acted lawfully under the Passport Act, 1967.
• National interest and security concerns justified withholding reasons.
• ‘Procedure established by law’ does not require the fairness test of ‘due process of law’.
• The legislature’s decision is final if backed by statutory authority.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment expanding the interpretation of Article 21. The Court held that the phrase ‘procedure established by law’ cannot mean any arbitrary procedure, but must conform to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. It ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not isolated silos but form an integrated framework protecting liberty. This judgment effectively introduced the American concept of ‘due process’ into Indian constitutional law under the guise of ‘procedure established by law’.

Ratio Decidendi

No person may be deprived of life or personal liberty unless the procedure is just, fair, and reasonable. The State cannot act arbitrarily; any law or action that violates Articles 14, 19, or 21 is unconstitutional.

Obiter Dicta

The Court emphasized the need for dynamic interpretation of fundamental rights, stating that the Constitution is a living document that must be construed in light of changing social and political realities. It also observed the judiciary’s duty to safeguard liberty against executive arbitrariness.

Final Decision

The Court held the Government’s action unconstitutional. The impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her valid reasons and an opportunity to be heard was struck down as a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.