Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

 

CASE ANALYSIS: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

 

 

In the Supreme Court of India

 

NAME OF THE CASE	Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
CITATION	1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
DATE OF THE CASE	25 January, 1978
APPELLANT	MANEKA GANDHI
RESPONDENT	UNION OF INDIA
BREACH / JUDGE	M. H. Beg (Chief Justice), Y. V. Chandrachud, V. R. Krishna Iyer, P. N. Bhagwati, N. L. Untwalia, S. MurtazaFazal Ali, P. S. Kailasam
STATUTES / CONSTITUTION INVOLVED	Constitution of India
IMPORTANT SECTONS / ARTICLES	Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution

 

 

ABSTRACT

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, and established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution (known as the 'golden triangle' or 'trinity'), holding that a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of them. The decision also held, once again overruling A. K. Gopalan that a 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

 

The decision had a significant influence on Indian constitutional law and has been described as the moment when the Supreme Court of India rejected "three decades of formalist interpretation, and inaugurated a new path where Courts would expand the rights of individuals against the State, instead of limiting or contracting them."

 

INTRODUCTION

The petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976, under the Passport Act, 1967. Later on July 2^nd, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, had ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport by a letter posted.

On being asked about the reasons for her passport confiscation, The Ministry of External Affairs declined to produce any reasons “in the interest of the general public.”

Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating the seize of her passport as the violation of her fundamental rights; specially Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

The respondent counterfeited stating that the petitioner was required to be present in connection with the proceedings which was going on, before a Commission of Inquiry.

 

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case is the product of a petition filed by Maneka Gandhi. The facts of the case are that the Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport under the Passport Act 1967. On July 2, 1977 she received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi asking her to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c) within 7 days from the day on which the letter has been received. Mrs. Gandhi wrote a letter to the officer asking a copy of the statement of reasons for the order. However, the office refused to provide any such reasons on the grounds of “interests of the general public”.  Aggrieved with this the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution for the enforcement of the rights under Articles 14 against the arbitrary steps of the passport office, under 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) i.e. Right to freedom of movement, and Article 21 i.e, Protection of Life & Personal Liberty. Petitioner contended that the order passed by the administrative authorities is void and it takes away the petitioner’s right to be given a fair chance of hearing to present her defence.  

To have an in depth understanding of the subject matter of this case and to analyse each and every aspect of it and how it has been dealt with in this case, we need to understand few concepts in brief. 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi’s passport was issued on 1^st June 1976 as per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2^nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that the State’s act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam held that right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.

 

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

1.     Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution of India?

2.     Whether ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.

3.     What is the connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

4.     Determining the scope of “Procedure established by Law”.

5.     Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is, whether such legislation is a concrete Law?

6.     Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of natural justice?

 

 

 

 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELANT SIDE

 

·       Through the administrative order that seized the passport on 4th July 1977, the State has infringed upon the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights of freedom of speech & expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to travel abroad and the right to freedom of movement.

·       The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be read together and aren’t mutually exclusive. Only a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation will lead to the observance of principles of natural justice and the true spirit of constitutionalism.

·       India might not have adopted the American concept of the “due process of law”, nevertheless, the procedure established by law should be fair and just, reasonable, and not be arbitrary.

·       Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the right to life & personal liberty guaranteed by this Article.

·       Audi AltremPartemi.e, the opportunity of being heard is invariably acknowledged as a vital component of the principles of natural justice. Even if these principles of natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of Fundamental Rights embodies the very crux of these principles.

 

 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

 

·       The respondent stated before the court that the passport was confiscated since the petitioner had to appear before a government committee for a hearing.

·       The respondent asserted that the word ‘law’ under Article 21 can’t be understood as reflected in the fundamental rules of natural justice, emphasising the principle laid down in the A K Gopalan case.

·       Article 21 contains the phrase “procedure established by law” & such procedure does not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in consonance with the Articles 14 & 19.

·       The framers of our Constitution had long debates on the American “due process of law” versus the British “procedure established by law”. The marked absence of the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers’ intentions.

 

RELATED PROVISIONS

·       The ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is a derivative of the right provided under ‘personal liberty’ and no citizen can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. Also, the Passports Act, 1967 does not prescribe any procedure for confiscating or revoking or impounding a passport of its holder. Hence, it is unreasonable and arbitrary.

·       Further, The Central Government acted in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. Hence, the true interpretation of Article 21, as well as its nature and protection, are required to be laid down.

·       Any procedure established by law is required to be free of arbitrariness and must comply with the “principles of natural justice”.

·       To upkeep the intention of the Constituent Assembly and to give effect to the spirit of our constitution, Fundamental Rights should be read in consonance with each other and in this case, Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India must be read together.

·       Fundamental rights are entitled to every citizen by virtue of being a human and is guaranteed against being exploited by the state. Hence, these fundamental rights should be wide-ranged and comprehensive to provide optimum protection.

·       To have a well-ordered and civilized society, the freedom guaranteed to its citizens must be in regulated form and therefore, reasonable restrictions were provided by the constitutional assembly from clauses (2) to (6) in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. But the laid restrictions do not provide any ground to be executed in this case.

·       Article 22 confers protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. In this case, the government by confiscating the passport of the petitioner without providing her any reasons for doing so has illegally detained her within the country.

·       In Kharak Singh v. the State of U.P, it was held that the term “personal liberty” is used in the constitution as a compendium including all the varieties of rights in relation to personal liberty whether or not included in several clauses of Article 19(1).

·       An essential constituent of Natural Justice is “Audi AlteramPartem” i.e., given a chance to be heard, was not granted to the petitioner.

·       Passports Act 1967 violates the ‘Right to Life and Liberty’ and hence is ultra vires. The petitioner was restrained from traveling abroad by virtue of the provision in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act of 1967.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 is void because it violates article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it doesn’t provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word “procedure” as mentioned in the clause, and the present procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court, however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter, and ruled that the passport would remain with the authorities till they deem fit.

 

 

CONCLUSION

After this case, the Supreme court became the watchdog to protect the essence of the constitution and safeguard the intention of the constitutional assembly who made it. The majority of judges opined that any legislation or section should be just, fair and reasonable and in its absence even the established or prevailed law can be considered arbitrary.

The judges mandated that any law which deprives a person of his personal liberty should stand the test of Article 21, 14 as well as 19 of the constitution. Also, principles of natural justice are sheltered under article 21 and therefore, no person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court. Further, to declare any state action or legislation invalid, the “golden triangle” i.e, articles 14, 19 and 21 must be invoked.