Published On: February 5th 2026
Authored By: Vaishnavi Ravindra Urmode
Marathwada Mitra Mandal's Shankarrao Chavan
Law College, Pune
- Case Title: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: M.H. Beg (Chief Justice of India), Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam, JJ.
- Date of Judgment: 25 January 1978
- Relevant Constitutional Provisions: Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967
Introduction
The judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is widely regarded as one of the most transformative decisions in Indian constitutional law. It fundamentally altered the interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution, by expanding the meaning of “personal liberty” and embedding the requirement of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness into constitutional procedure. The decision marked a clear departure from the earlier narrow and literal interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court and laid the foundation for a rights-oriented jurisprudence that continues to shape constitutional adjudication in India.
Brief Facts
Maneka Gandhi, a journalist by profession, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967. In July 1977, the Government of India, acting through the Ministry of External Affairs, impounded her passport by exercising its powers under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act on the ground of “public interest”. The order impounding the passport neither disclosed the reasons for such action nor afforded the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the impounding of her passport violated her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21. She contended that the right to travel abroad is an integral component of personal liberty and that the procedure adopted by the State was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Union of India defended its action by asserting that the Passport Act provided a valid statutory procedure and that considerations of public interest justified the impugned action.
Issues Involved
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the following issues:
- Whether the right to travel abroad forms part of “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the expression “procedure established by law” under Article 21 permits arbitrary or unreasonable State action.
- Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive or are required to be read together.
- Whether the impounding of the petitioner’s passport without providing reasons or an opportunity of hearing was constitutionally valid.
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that personal liberty under Article 21 should not be interpreted narrowly. She contended that the earlier decision in A K Gopalan v. State of Madras had adopted a restrictive approach which failed to give meaningful content to fundamental rights. According to the petitioner, any law depriving a person of personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not merely procedurally valid.
It was further argued that Articles 14, 19, and 21 together constitute an inseparable trinity of rights. The petitioner relied on R C Cooper v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court rejected the compartmentalisation of fundamental rights and held that State action must be tested against all applicable fundamental rights.
The petitioner also submitted that the principles of natural justice are implicit in Article 21. The failure of the Government to furnish reasons for impounding the passport and the denial of an opportunity of hearing rendered the action arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees.
Arguments Advanced by the Respondent
The Union of India contended that the Passport Act, 1967 provided a complete statutory framework governing the issuance and impounding of passports. It was argued that the Constitution deliberately uses the phrase “procedure established by law” instead of “due process of law,” thereby excluding the requirement of substantive fairness.
The respondent further argued that the impounding of the passport was justified in the interest of public order and national security. Disclosure of reasons, according to the Government, would be contrary to public interest. It was submitted that once a procedure prescribed by law is followed, the requirement of Article 21 stands satisfied.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically rejected the narrow interpretation of “procedure established by law” adopted in A K Gopalan and held that such procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
The Court further held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated and must be read together. Any law depriving a person of personal liberty must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the test of reasonableness under Article 19.
The Court also held that the principles of natural justice are an essential component of a fair procedure under Article 21. The impounding of the petitioner’s passport without furnishing reasons or granting an opportunity of hearing was therefore held to be unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and any law affecting personal liberty must also satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 and 19. Arbitrary State action, even if authorised by statute, violates the guarantee of personal liberty under the Constitution.
Obiter Dicta
The Court observed that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted dynamically to meet the changing needs of society. It emphasised that the judiciary has a constitutional duty to protect individual liberty against arbitrary State action.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and held that the impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons or an opportunity of hearing was unconstitutional. The Government was directed to act in accordance with the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and natural justice.
Impact and Significance of the Case
The judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India marked a turning point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It expanded the scope of Article 21 and effectively introduced the doctrine of substantive due process into Indian law. The decision strengthened the protection of civil liberties and curtailed arbitrary State power.
The doctrine of the “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21 laid down in this case has been consistently followed in subsequent judgments. The case continues to serve as a cornerstone of constitutional interpretation and judicial review in India.
References
[1] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[2] Constitution of India arts 14, 19, 21
[3] Passport Act 1967 s 10(3)(c).
[4]A K Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
[5] R C Cooper v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248.
