Maneka Gandhi v UOI

 

Case commentary – Maneka Gandhi v UOI

By Amar Nagsen

SLS Nagpur

This case is a landmark judgement which played the most significant role towards the transformation of the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21.

This case is always read and linked with A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case, because this case revolves around the concept of“personal liberty” which first came up for consideration in the A.K. Gopalan’s case.

JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CASE-

This case was decided by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1978.

The judges involved in the case were-

1.     M.H. Beg, C.J.

2.     P.N. Bhagwati.

3.     Y.V. Chandrachud.

4.     V.R. Krishna Iyer.

5.     N.L. Untwalia.

6.     P.S. Kai asam.

7.     S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.

FACTS OF THE CASE–

The factual summary of this case is as follows-

·       Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport 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 Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

·       Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general public.

·       Later, a writ petitionwas filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE–

The main issues of this case were as follows-

1.     Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

2.     Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.

3.     Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21of the constitution.

4.     Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.

JUDGEMNT OF THE CASE–

·       To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.

·       Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.

·       Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article and the procedure practiced is worst.

·       Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).

·       A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.

In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the Supreme Court laid down a number of propositions seeking to make Article 21 much more meaningful than hitherto.

·       The Court reiterated the proposition that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. A nexus has been established between these three Articles.

·       This means that a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person a ‘personal liberty’ has to meet the requirements of Article 19. Also, the procedure established by law in Article 21 must answer the requirements of Article 14 as well.

·       Hence this judgement established "due procedure of law" rather than “process established by law" - protection not only against arbitrary actions of Executive but those of Legislature also leading to establishment of Judicial Activism eg.eg. striking down NJAC

·       Also Right to travel abroad was interpreted as the part of the Art 21.

This was a major judgement reversing Goalan's case judgement - narrow interpretation of Article 21

Gopalan case - Gopalan's preventive detention was upheld though in violation to

·       Article 14 ( because arbitrary detention) and Article 19 (violated freedom of mvmt) because Article 21 meant only procedural due process ie., Only arbitrary actions of Executive are protected against, not those of legislature and hence the SC concluded that A21 was not violated as preventive detention law was valid.

·       This judgement concluded that FRs are not interconnected - a law based on 1 FR need not satisfy other FRs