CASE
COMMENT
MANEKA
GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA
Appellant-
Maneka Gandhi.
Respondent-
Union of India.
Citation-
AIR 1978, SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Date
of Judgement- January 25, 1978.
Judge
Bench- Beg, M. Hameedullah (CJ), Chandrachud, Y.V.,
Bhagwati, P.N., Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Untwalia, N.L., Fazalali, S.M. &
Kailasam, P.S.
INTRODUCTION
The
case Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India stands as a bulwarkto the fundamental
Right of Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. It all started with the seizing of Maneka Gandhi’s passport by
the Ministry of External Affairs which resulted in direct infringement of her
above-mentioned right. A seven-judge bench of the supreme court subsequently
issued a unanimous ruling in response to this arbitrarily confiscating the
passport.Just before the decision of this case, Article 21 which guarantees the
fundamental Right to life and personal liberty was applicable only against the
executive's arbitrary action but this got eventually reversed after this case. Gradually,
the Article gave protection to legislative actions. The Supreme Court's ruling
in this case is recognised as one of its best decisions since it helped restore
public confidence in the legal system and constitutional principles. The
Supreme Court framed the Golden Triangle rule after this case andsolidified its
position as the guardian of democracy. With a decision given by our Hon'ble
Supreme Court after this case it began with the new age of interpretation of
these rights under article 14,19 and 21. This ruling changed the Indian
Constitution fundamentally and inaugurated a new phase in the evolution of the
idea of right to personal liberty.After the ruling of this case, the definition
of Fundamental Rights under Part 3 of the Constitution has been expanded.
FACTS
OF THE CASE
In
this case, the petitioner – Maneka Gandhi's passport was seized by the authority
of External Affairs Ministry. On 1st of June, 1976 Maneka Gandhi's
passport was issued under the Passport Act of 1967. On the very next year that
is in the year 1977, her passport was seized by the authority without giving
any prior notice or without ascertaining any reason as to why her passport was
seized. She was not given any reason for this unilateral decision taken by the
Ministry of External Affairs.
A
writ jurisdiction under Article 32 was invoked by her before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. Maneka Gandhi appealedbefore the Court that the State
has impounded her passport and this resulted in the direct infringement of her
fundamental Right to Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.It is important to note that in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnamthe
Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is well within the Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. But it was not clear till what extent Passport
Act dilutes this right mentioned well within the meaning of Article 21.
The
authorities who seized her passport said that the reasons cannot be specified considering
the “larger interest of the public.” The petitioner then contended that by not
stating the reasons, it directly infringes her fundamental rights under Articles
14, 19 and 21. Hence, the writ petition was filed under Article 32 for the
violation of these fundamental rights.
CONTENTIONS
OF THE PARTIES
APPELLANT'S
CONTENTIONS
According to the petitioner the seizing of her passport in the year 1977 without
giving prior notice has resulted in the breach
of the following rights- Right to freedom of speech and expression, Right to
travel abroad, Right to life and personal liberty and Right to move freely. According
to the petitioner's claim the provisions mentioned under Articles 21, 19 and
14 are not in consonance. They are not
mutually exclusive. An in-depth analysis and a thorough interpretation is
necessary for determining the true spirit of our constitution.
In
the petitioner’s view the “procedure established by law” should not be unfair
and arbitrary. The Indian Constitution has not adopted the American phrase: due
process of law but the British phrase that is accepted must be fair and just!
It
was claimed that the section 10(3)© of the Passport Act 1967 infringes the
right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The legal maxim Audi Alterem Partem which means the right to be
heard is not comprehended properly as an important component of the natural
justice principles. Although these natural rights principles are not
specifically mentioned in any article of the Constitution, the thinking behind
the spirit of fundamental rights embodies the essence of those principles
categorized as fundamental rights.
RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTIONS
It
was stated by the respondent before the court that the passport was seized by
the authority without ascertaining any reason. The Petitioner had to present herself
before the government committee just for a hearing. Considering the principles
mentioned in the AK Gopalan Case the respondent argued that the word “law”
within the meaning of Article 21 cannot be easily comprehended as reflected in
the natural justice fundamental rules.
The
phrase “procedure established by law” is mentioned under Article 21. These
procedures need not clear the reasonabilitytest nor is it necessary to be
consistent with the Articles 19 and 14 of the Indian Constitution. Our Constitution
framers had long debates with regard to two phrases- the American phrase: due
process of law and the British phrase: procedure established by law.
The
apparent lack of due process in the provisions of the Constitution of India clearly
demonstrates the intentions of the framers.
ISSUES
INVOLVED
·
Whether “Right to
Travel Abroad” has any protection within the meaning of Article 21?
·
What is the scope of
the phrase “Procedure established by law”?
·
Whether the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles are conditional or absolute?
·
Whether the disputed
regional passport officer's order violates a natural justice principles?
JUDGEMENT
OF THE HON'BLE COURT
Judgement
of the Apex Court
According
to the Supreme Court, section 10(3)© of the Passport Act 1967 infringes the
rights and provisions mentioned under Article 21 and 14. The court held that it
is void and vague in nature as it gives the authority an extraordinary power. Section 10(3)© even
does not provide the opportunity to be heard hence it is violative of the
principles of natural justice. It also violates the provisions of Article 21
and does not abide by the procedure established by law. The court was of the
view that the passport should still remain in their custody until further
observation.
This
landmark judgement widened the scope of article 21 and brought changes to many
things. When a person sought to leave his country of origin and relocate
overseas, there was no law governing the passport before the Passport Act of
1967 was passed. Additionally, the executives issued the passports in an
unquestioned manner, exercising complete discretion.In the case of Satwant
Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam it was held by the Supreme Court that right to
travel and move freely is also included within the meaning of Personal Liberty.
All these rights cannot be taken away without the procedure established by law.
The court observed that since there is no rule restricting these rights of
citizens hence the seizing of her passport is considered to be a violation of
Article 21 as well as Article 14.
The
court was also of the view that the authority should state reasons of the
confiscation of her passport and keep a record of that as a proof if it is
seized considering the friendly relations with the foreign states, keeping in
mind the sovereignty and integrity of India, security and the interest of
larger public group. But the Central Government failed to cite any reason for
confiscating her passport rather they stated it was done only in the interest
of larger groups of people. Later, it was made clear that this was not
necessary done in the public interest and that no regular person would
comprehend the justifications for withholding this information or the reasons
for the seizure of her passport.
The
fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution are not unique or
exclusive of one another. "Any law restricting an individual's personal
freedom must pass a test involving one or more of these rights.” There has also
been an infringement of the legal maxim Audi Alterem Partem which provides us
with the principles of natural justice. A.K.
Gopalan was overruled on the grounds that every law must pass the requirements
of the aforementioned articles and that there is a special relationship between
the Articles 21,19 and 14. Prior to this, the majority ruled that these
provisions alone are mutually incompatible. As a result, the court determined
that these rules are dependent on one another rather than being mutually
exclusive in order to address its prior error.
CONCLUSION
It
is only after this case that the Supreme Court is more watchful to protect the
essence of the Indian Constitution and to safeguard those rights of the people
which are being infringed. According to the majority of judges, any law or
provision should be reasonable and not unfair in nature; otherwise, even
previously established or preeminent law can be viewed as arbitrary.Similarly,
the judges were of the view that if any person is deprived of his/her right
then that should undergo a test under Article 14, 19 and 21. These three
Articles form a Golden Triangle and the principles of natural justice being
mentioned within the ambit of Article 21 which means that “No one should be
left unheard.” It is this case which is so amazingly derived logically by a
seven-judge bench. Justice is, in essence, the idea of a fair process, as it
was in this case. Last but not the least, justice is maintained by the spirit
rather than the letter of the law.
The
meaning of “life and personal liberty” which has been clearly interpreted after
this case under Article 21 is no more restricted within the boundariesof
territory. Judicial Activism got its
higher level of position after this case and this marked the beginning of a new
period which expanded the scope of fundamental rights particularly under
Article 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
appreciated the challenge of reading Article 21, 19 and 14 at once which is
together commonly known as the “Golden Triangle. “In the AK Gopalan case, the court
had previously concluded that a legal process might limit a person's right to
life and personal liberty even if it was unfair and unreasonable.In this case, “procedure
established by law” means laws which are fair and reasonable and which are in
consonance with the fundamental rights of citizens. This judgement nullified
the straightforward interpretation of legal procedure and for the first time
incorporated the idea of due process of law into the Constitution of India. Thus,
with the help of this judgement the meaning and the scope of Article 21 got
expanded and was interpreted in such a manner so that it serves the interest of
larger “larger public.”
0 Comments