MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA (1978)

Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

Respondent: Union of India and Others

Citation: (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1978 SC 597

Date of Judgment: 25 January 1978

Bench: 7-Judge Bench (M.H. Beg CJ, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, and P.S. Kailasam JJ)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was issued a passport on 1 June 1976 under the Passport Act, 1967. On 4 July 1977, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer intimating that her passport had been impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. The petitioner was immediately required to surrender her passport within seven days of receiving the letter.

The petitioner wrote to the Regional Passport Officer requesting detailed reasons in writing for the impoundment. A reply was sent by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, stating that the action was taken in the “interest of the general public.” The petitioner immediately filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, contending that Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) had been violated.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

1. The right to travel abroad is a part of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21, and no citizen can be deprived of this right except by procedure established by law. The Passport Act, 1967 does not provide a reasonable procedure for impounding passports.
2. The Central Government did not provide any fair and reasonable explanation for impounding the petitioner’s passport.
3. The Central Government did not grant the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, as required under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
4. Any procedure established by law must be free from arbitrariness and must comply with the principles of natural justice.
5. An essential component of natural justice, audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), was not granted to the petitioner.
6. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

1. The right to travel abroad is not covered under any clause of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, Article 19 does not apply to the actions of the Central Government in this matter.
2. The provisions of the Passport Act are not violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
3. The government should not be compelled to provide detailed justification for seizing or impounding someone’s passport when national security is involved.
4. The petitioner was required to appear before a committee for an inquiry, and hence her passport was impounded.
5. The principles of natural justice are vague and ambiguous; therefore, the Constitution need not refer to them.
6. Article 21 contains the phrase “procedure established by law,” and such procedures need not pass the test of reasonableness.
7. The scope of Article 21 is distinct from Articles 14 and 19. A law cannot be held unconstitutional under Article 21 if it has not infringed the provisions of Articles 14 and 19.
8. The respondent stated that the petitioner’s passport was impounded for purposes of national security. They argued that the restriction was imposed to prevent potential threats and to maintain public order.

ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

1. Is there a connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
2. What is the scope of “procedure established by law” under Article 21?
3. What is the difference between “procedure established by law” and “due process of law”?
4. Whether the order of the Regional Passport Officer contravened the principles of natural justice?

JUDGMENT

Background and Precedent

Before the enactment of the Passport Act, there was no specific law regarding passports. However, in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967), the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is included within the meaning of personal liberty under Article 21. Therefore, no person can be arbitrarily deprived of this right.

The Golden Triangle: Interrelationship of Articles 14, 19, and 21

The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court overruled the decision in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which had held that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive and independent of each other. In Maneka Gandhi, the Court established that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked, forming what is now known as the “golden triangle” of the Constitution.

The Court held that any law depriving a person of personal liberty must satisfy the requirements of all three articles. Article 21 cannot be read in isolation but must be harmonised with Articles 14 and 19.

Procedure Established by Law Must Be Just, Fair, and Reasonable

The Court ruled that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be just, fair, and reasonable. This marked a fundamental departure from the narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan, where the Court had held that any procedure established by valid law would satisfy Article 21, regardless of its fairness.

The Court emphasised that procedural safeguards are essential to prevent arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty. The procedure must conform to the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard (audi alteram partem).

Violation of Natural Justice

The Court found that the government’s action violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before her passport was impounded, nor was she provided with adequate reasons for the action. The Court held that when a fundamental right is affected, the affected person must be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

Upholding Section 10(3)(c) with Conditions

While the Court did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, it read into the provision the requirement of compliance with principles of natural justice. The Court held that the executive must provide reasons for impounding a passport and must give the affected person an opportunity to be heard, except in extraordinary circumstances where national security requires immediate action.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT

This judgment marked a fundamental shift in Indian constitutional law, prioritising individual rights over a restrictive interpretation of state power. The decision had several far-reaching consequences:

1. Expanded Meaning of Article 21: The judgment broadened the scope of personal liberty to include numerous rights essential for human dignity, including the right to travel abroad.
2. Procedural Fairness Requirements: It established that any law affecting personal liberty must meet standards of fairness, reasonableness, and natural justice.
3. Golden Triangle Doctrine: The interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 became a cornerstone of constitutional interpretation in India.
4. Foundation for Implied Rights: This judgment laid the groundwork for the subsequent recognition of various unenumerated rights under Article 21, including the right to a clean environment, right to education, right to health, right to clean drinking water, and protection from noise pollution.
5. Balancing State Power and Individual Rights: While protecting citizens from arbitrary executive actions, the judgment preserved the sanctity of parliamentary legislation by not striking down the statute itself, but rather interpreting it in accordance with constitutional principles.

The Maneka Gandhi case remains one of the most significant constitutional law decisions in India, fundamentally reshaping the relationship between the state and individual liberty.

REFERENCES

Cases

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1978 SC 597
• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, (1967) 3 SCR 525; AIR 1967 SC 1836
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27

Legislation

• The Constitution of India, 1950
• The Passport Act, 1967

Books

• Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 61st edition, Central Law Agency

Online Resources

• Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org
• Supreme Court of India Digital Library: https://digiscr.sci.gov.in
• iPleaders Blog: https://blog.ipleaders.in