Author: Rakesh Kr. Chaurasiya

Court: Supreme Court of India

Writ Petition No. 231 of 1977

Date of Judgement: 25.01.1978

Citation: MANU/SC/0133/1978, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

Respondent: Union of India

Bench: M. Hameedullah Beg, C.J., N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, P.S. Kaliasam, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Relevant Provision: Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967

Introduction

The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that expanded the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing the ne-ed for due process and the principles of natural justice.

Brief Facts

In the present case, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi (petitioner)was issued a passport under the Passport Act of 1967. On 2^nd July1977, a notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Regional Passport Officer to surrender the passport. When the Petitioner tried to ask for the reasons, the Government of Indian has declined to her request stating that it is in the interest of the general public. Aggrieved by this the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Her main ground in the petition was that the confiscation of passport by the Passport Authority violates her fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Issue Involved

1. Whether the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India are connected with each other or are they mutually exclusive?
2. Whether the right to travel outside the country is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the challenged order of the Regional Passport officer in violation of natural justice principles?
4. Whether section 10 (3) of the Passport Act, 1967 is valid or not?

Petitioner’s Argument

• The right to go abroad is part of “personal liberty” within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 21 and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. There is no procedure prescribed by the Passport Act, for impounding or revoking a Passport.  
• Section 10(3) (c) is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (a) and (g) and 21.
• The impugned order is made in contravention of the rules of natural justice and is, therefore, null and void.
• In order that a passport may be impounded under section 10 (3) (c) of the Passports Act 1967, public interest must actually exist in present and the mere likelihood of public interest arising in future would be no ground for impounding the passport.

Respondent’s Argument

• The Attorney General of India argued that the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ was never covered under any clauses of article 19(1) and hence, Article 19 is independent of proving the reasonableness of the actions taken by the Central Government.
• Reiterating the principle laid down in A.K Gopalan’s case, the respondent contended that the word law under Article 21 cannot be comprehended in the light fundamental rules of natural justice.
• Article 21 is very wide and it also contains in itself, the provisions of Articles 14 & 19. However, any law can only be termed unconstitutional to Article 21 when it directly infringes Article 14 & 19. Hence, passport law is not unconstitutional.
• Article 21 in its language contains “procedure established by law” & such procedure need not pass the test of reasonability. The constitutional makers while drafting this constitution had debated at length on American “due process of law” & British “procedure established by law”. 

Judgement

• The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that the procedure established by law must be “right, just, and fair,” not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
• The Court ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked and must be read together, forming the “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution.
• The government’s action was unconstitutional as it violated the principles of natural justice by not giving Maneka Gandhi an opportunity to be heard.
• The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) is not confined to the territorial limits of India.

Ration Decidendi

• Reliance was placed on the decision of A.D.M Jabalpur and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramaratham Assistant Passport Officer Government of India.
• The bench opined that “personal liberty” protected and guaranteed by Article 21 is very wide and comprehensive and it includes the right to travel abroad within the ambit of personal liberty.
• The orders passed under section 10(3) of the act should be established on some material ground even reasonable apprehension originating from creditable sources is sufficient cause.
• It is a well-settled principle it is the right of an individual to have a reasonable opportunity to be heard (Principle of Natural Justice).

Final Decision

• The right to travel abroad is protected within Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967 does not violate fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
• The order passed by the Regional Passport Officer was quashed and Passport Authority was directed to return the passport of the petitioner.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Maneka Gandhi’s case, gave the term ‘personal liberty’ widest possible interpretation and gave effect to the intention of the drafters of the Constitution. This case, while adding a whole new dimension to the concept of ‘personal liberty’, extended the protection of Art. 14 to the personal liberty of every person and additional protection of Art. 19 to the personal liberty of every citizen.

Reference

• Article 14, 19, 21, and 32 of the Constitution of India
• Passport Act, 1967, ss. 10(3)(c), 10(5).
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, (1967) 3 SCR 525
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1985 AIR 652.