Case Analysis

Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India
Case Analysis
Group Members
Diya Vashishtha -500094279
Harsh Srivastava -500094934
Gaurang Chauhan -500094292
Introduction
In the development of Article 21 and the interpretation of

Fundamental Rights, the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India case is recognised as a landmark decision. After this
lawsuit, the Indian Constitution's Articles 14, 19, and 21
were strengthened even more, and Article 21 gained
significant extensions.
A seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court, consisting of

M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N.
Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, and P.S.
Kailasam, issued a unanimous ruling in response to this
unlawful passport confiscation.
Background of Maneka Gandhi vs.

Union of India
After declaring a state of emergency, Indira Gandhi's

reputation suffered, she lost the 1977 election, and the
Bhartiya Janta Party was elected to power.
Maneka Gandhi, her daughter-in-law, was in director of
Surya Magazine at the time.
She wanted to go abroad to give a speech about democracy
or human rights. She intended to go but was unable to do
so since the passport authorities had her passport
detained (seized).
Facts of the Case
According to the Passport Act of 1967, the petitioner

Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on June 1st, 1976.
She was forced to turn in her passport by the Regional
Passport Office (New Delhi) on July 2nd, 1977.
Additionally, the petitioner did not get a justification for
the External Affairs Ministry's arbitrary and unilateral
decision, which it justified by claiming the public interest.
By requesting the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction and

arguing that the State's action of seizing her passport was
a direct violation of her right to personal liberty as
protected by Article 21, the petitioner approached the
court. It is important to note that the Supreme Court ruled
in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam that the
freedom to travel internationally falls squarely inside the
purview of Article 21, however it was unclear how far the
Passport Act curtailed this particular right.
Articles of the Indian Constitution that

have been used in this Case.
Article 14 - Right to Equality .
All citizens will be treated equally in front of the law,

according to this clause.
Everyone is equally protected by the law in this nation.
People will be treated equally by the law under the same
situations.
Article 19
Article 19 gurantees six freedom ;-
1 . Freedom of Speech and Expressions :- Every

Indian has the right to free speech and expression,
according to the State. To protect the integrity, security,
and sovereignty of the nation, to maintain friendly
relations with other countries, to maintain public order,
and to prevent defamation, incitement to commit a crime,
and to avoid court contempt, the State may impose
restrictions on the right to free speech and expression.
2 . Freedom to assemble :- Every person has the right

to gather peacefully and without weapons under the
protection of the State. As mentioned before, nevertheless,
legitimate limitations may be imposed in the name of
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and public order.
3 . Freedom to form association :- Once more, the

State may impose limits to protect the nation's integrity,
security, and sovereignty as well as friendly relations with
other countries, public order, and against defamation,
incitement to commit crime, and contempt of court.
Workers now have the freedom to organise a union, which
is a fundamental right.
Police officers are not allowed to organise trade unions

under the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act of 1966.
According to the Constitution, only people working for

intelligence agencies, telecommunications companies, or
members of the armed forces are allowed to organise
political associations.
4 . Freedom to move freely :- A citizen of India has
unrestricted access to the entire country. However, this
privilege may also be curtailed for reasons of safety, peace,
or to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.
5 . Freedom of Residence : - India's citizens are free to

live anywhere in the nation. Although limitations may be
imposed in the interests of safety, maintaining peace, or
safeguarding the rights of Scheduled Tribes.
6 . Freedom of Profession :- All citizens have the right

to carry on any trade or profession/occupation, provided
the trade or occupation is not illegal or immoral. Also, the
law does not prevent the State from making laws related to
technical or professional qualifications required for
practicing the occupation or trade.
Article 21
According to Article 21, the State may not take away
someone's life or personal liberty unless it follows a
certain legal process. This essay covers a lot of ground, and
over the years, different people have interpreted it in
different ways.According to the Supreme Court, the right
to life includes the right to a dignified life.
In a certain way, the right to life is the most crucial since
without it, all other fundamental freedoms would be
meaningless.
The distinction between a police state and a constitutional
state is made in this particular article.
- Article 21{A}
The 86th Constitutional Amendment of 2002 added this

section. It states that all children between the ages of 6
and 14 must get free and required education from the
State.
Article 32
Every Indian citizen has the right, under Article 32 of the

Indian Constitution, to petition the Supreme Court for a
constitutional remedy if their fundamental rights have
been violated.
Issues before the Court

1 . What is the territory covered by the Fundamental
Rights provided by Part III of the Constitution, and are
they absolute?
2 .Is Article 21 a part of the "Right to Travel Abroad"?

Are the rights protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Indian Constitution related to one another?
3 . What does "Procedure established by law" mean?
4 .Does the Passport Act of 1967's Section 10(3)(c) violate

fundamental rights?
5 . Does the Regional Passport Officer's order violate the

rules of natural justice?
Contention of the Petitioner
- It's crucial to understand Maneka Gandhi's reasons for

her case against the Union of India after reading about the
court's difficulties.
- According to Article 21, the ability to travel
internationally is considered an element of "personal
liberty," and it cannot be taken away from anyone until
done so in compliance with the legal process.
The Passport Act, however, does not provide a legal
process that permits the seizure of a passport.
- Therefore, it violates the petitioner's fundamental rights

to freedom of speech and expression and is arbitrary and
irrational.
- A public interest must exist at the time of seizure in order

to impounded a passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, not just one that might.
- The arguments made in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

India case further claim that the clauses in Articles 14, 19,
and 21 are connected and not mutually exclusive.
- To realise the ideals of natural justice, they must be read

and interpreted together. Upholding the spirit of our
constitution requires that we read the fundamental rights
in tandem.
- Even though India has not embraced the concept of due

process of law, the process must be reasonable, just, and
fair.
- As it limits the right to life and personal liberty, Section

10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates fundamental rights
protected by Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and (g), and 21.
- The principles of natural justice include the right to an

audience, or Audi Alteram Partem. Despite the absence of
the phrase "natural justice" in our constitution, the
framers intended for the fundamental rights to be read to
encompass its tenets.
Contentions of the Respondent
- The respondents said that the petitioner's passport was

seized in order to force him or her to show up for a hearing
before a government committee.
- Utilising the A.K. The respondents argued in the Gopalan

case that the term of "law" under Article 21 could not be
interpreted in accordance with the fundamental principles
of natural justice. Personal liberty should also be strictly
construed.
- The respondents in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

contend, among other things, that the concept of "process
established by law" encompassed by Article 21 is not
necessary to pass the reasonability test. Even so, it might
not be consistent with Articles 14 and 19.
- American law's "due process of law" and British law's

"procedure established by law" have been the subject of
ongoing controversies. It is obvious that the constitution's
framers did not want to incorporate the due process of law
because it is not stated in the document anywhere.
Procedure Established by Law

In layman's words, it is described as a legislation that is
validly adopted by the legislature and must be observed,
given that it upholds proper procedure. This concept has
the authority to revoke anyone's right to life or personal
liberty in accordance with the legal process. Simply put, it
indicates that any law that has been lawfully enacted is
valid, even if it goes against the concepts of equity and
justice.
Due process of Law
It is a doctrine that needs to be examined for effectiveness,
justice, and non-arbitrariness. If a law is not just, fair, and
arbitrary, the supreme court has the authority to declare it
invalid. This philosophy protects a wide range of personal
freedoms.
Judgement
On January 25, 1978, the historic decision in Maneka

Gandhi v. Union of India was handed down. This
judgement underlined the welfare state concept
entrenched in the Preamble and gave Article 21 a broad
meaning. The judgement was given by a seven-judge panel
and was as follows:
- It was decided that the term "personal liberty" should be

defined broadly rather than narrowly.
- Article 21 guarantees the freedom to travel abroad, as

was argued in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney. The
Passport Act's Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) were
determined by the court to be administrative orders.
Administrative orders cannot be contested on the grounds
that they are unjust, irrational, or unfair.
- The Court ruled that because there was no prejudice

against the petitioner, Section 10(3)(c) did not violate
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further
determined that Section 10(3)(c) is constitutional because
it gives the Passport authority the right to suspend or
revoke a passport where doing so would compromise
national security. However, because the authorities failed
to provide a justification for seizing the passport in this
instance, it was arbitrary. The petitioner in this case was
denied the right to Audi Alteram Partem, which literally
means "let the other side be heard."
- In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decision, the

Supreme Court rejected A.K. Gopalan's argument and
concluded that Articles 14, 19, and 21 should be read
collectively rather than separately to achieve the principles
of natural justice. The Court devised a principle known as
the "golden triangle" or "trinity" and claimed that Articles
14, 19, and 21 are connected.
Conclusion
Many new precedents were established in the Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India case. As a watchdog to protect
fundamental rights, the Supreme Court was established.
According to the ruling, a legislation must be just, fair, and
reasonable in order to be upheld as constitutional. The
Court expanded the purview of the Constitution's Article
21 right to life and personal freedom. The citizens can now
seek protection from the Executive's arbitrary actions.
It also stressed the inseparability of Articles 14, 19, and 21

this is so"golden triangle" rule. Every procedure must now
adhere to the demands of all three Articles in order to be
valid.
The scope of Article 21 was also broadened by this ruling

to include a variety of additional rights, including the right
to access to clean water, a minimum level of education, a
means of subsistence, and legal help. In A.K. Gopalan's
case, the court refused to accept both "due process of law"
and "procedure established by law".
The ruling significantly broadened the application of

Article 21 and established a precedent in the legal
community. Justices Bhagwati, Untwalia, and Fazl Ali JJ
wrote the majority decision. The statements by
Chandrachud, Iyer, and Beg (CJ) were independent but
concurring.
In the Maneka Gandhi case, the Supreme Court rejected

this argument, concluding that it was arbitrary to seize a
passport without providing justification. Therefore, the
Court expanded the meaning of these two terms and
established a new precedent in the Maneka Gandhi case.

Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maneka Gandhi v.

In the development of Article 21 and the interpretation of

A seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court, consisting of

Background of Maneka Gandhi vs.

After declaring a state of emergency, Indira Gandhi's

Facts of the Case

According to the Passport Act of 1967, the petitioner

By requesting the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction and

Articles of the Indian Constitution that

Article 14 - Right to Equality .

All citizens will be treated equally in front of the law,

Article 19 gurantees six freedom ;-

1 . Freedom of Speech and Expressions :- Every

2 . Freedom to assemble :- Every person has the right

3 . Freedom to form association :- Once more, the

Police officers are not allowed to organise trade unions

According to the Constitution, only people working for

5 . Freedom of Residence : - India's citizens are free to

6 . Freedom of Profession :- All citizens have the right

The 86th Constitutional Amendment of 2002 added this

Every Indian citizen has the right, under Article 32 of the

Issues before the Court

2 .Is Article 21 a part of the "Right to Travel Abroad"?

3 . What does "Procedure established by law" mean?

4 .Does the Passport Act of 1967's Section 10(3)(c) violate

5 . Does the Regional Passport Officer's order violate the

Contention of the Petitioner

- It's crucial to understand Maneka Gandhi's reasons for

- Therefore, it violates the petitioner's fundamental rights

- A public interest must exist at the time of seizure in order

- The arguments made in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

- To realise the ideals of natural justice, they must be read

- Even though India has not embraced the concept of due

- As it limits the right to life and personal liberty, Section

- The principles of natural justice include the right to an

- The respondents said that the petitioner's passport was

- Utilising the A.K. The respondents argued in the Gopalan

- The respondents in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

- American law's "due process of law" and British law's

Procedure Established by Law

On January 25, 1978, the historic decision in Maneka

- It was decided that the term "personal liberty" should be

- Article 21 guarantees the freedom to travel abroad, as

- The Court ruled that because there was no prejudice

- In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decision, the

It also stressed the inseparability of Articles 14, 19, and 21

The scope of Article 21 was also broadened by this ruling

The ruling significantly broadened the application of

In the Maneka Gandhi case, the Supreme Court rejected

You might also like