NAME: BHOOMI SHAH

SRN NO. 202200107

SUBJECT: LEGAL WRITING SKILLS

COURSE CODE: BBAL407

COURSE TEACHER: PROF.DIVYANSHU PRIYADARSHI

DAY & DATE: THURSDAY, 25-04-2024

PROJECT-2

CASE ANALYSIS USING IRAC METHOD

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
Introduction

Imagine a situation where you have to live without access to clean water, a green environment,
nutrition and every other necessity of sustaining life. What a dystopian world that would be!
Similarly, when our Constitution deals with the right to life under Article 21, it must encompass
the right to live a life with dignity and access to basic sustenance. The means of life are
sacrosanct to life itself, and this idea has been interpreted by the judiciary in multiple cases, the
primary of which is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(1978). This case became a landmark
judgment for highlighting the importance of the right to life as an expansive right and for
emphasising the interconnectedness of rights in the form of the golden triangle. The judgement
deals with various aspects related to the expansive interpretation of Article 21, including
peripheral rights, the right to travel abroad, the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21, as
well as the difference between due process of law and procedure established by law. Principles
of natural justice as enshrined in the judgement are also discussed in brief.

Summary of facts

The petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976,
under the Passports Act, 1967. Later on July 2nd, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New
Delhi, 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 size of her passport as a violation of her fundamental rights, specifically 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 countered stating that the petitioner was required to be present in connection
with the proceedings that were going on, before an inquiry comission.

1|Page
 Identification of parties

 Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

 Respondent: Union Of India And Other
 Date Of Judgment: January 25, 1978
 Bench: Before M.H. Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L.
Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam.

IRAC METHOD
Issues before the Court

 Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional, and what is the extent of the
territorial application of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution of
India?
 Whether ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is protected under the umbrella of Article 21 as a peripheral
and concomitant right?.
 What is the connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India (The Golden Triangle Principle)?
 What is the scope of the phrase “Procedure established by Law” as mentioned under Article 21?.
 Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, is a violation of
Fundamental Rights, and if it is, whether such legislation is a concrete law?
 Whether the impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of
natural justice?

2|Page
Rule

Article 14: This particular provision embodies the right to equality before the law as a primary
fundamental right necessary for individual entitlement through constitutional ideals. This
provision ensures that all individuals are treated equally by the state and its authorities or
instrumentalities, without any form of discrimination. This protection extends to citizens and
non-citizens alike, forms the very foundation for the golden triangle of fundamental rights, and
manifests fairness in the process of applying laws and legislation.
Article 19: This provision guarantees every citizen of India the “right to freedom of speech and
expression” except for certain reasonable restrictions that are necessary for maintaining public
order, health and national integrity. This freedom is important for the healthy functioning of
democracy in a society, as unrestricted speech and expression are necessary to dissent and create
healthy governance. The nexus between Articles 14 and 19 ensures that every individual is
treated equally while exercising their right to free speech and expression. This helps in
maintaining uniformity by enabling citizens to articulate their thoughts and opinions.
Article 21: This constitutional protection extends to the right to life and personal liberty and
encompasses all the rights that are necessary for having a dignified life with access to all the
necessities of life and living. It is the linchpin of the golden triangle, as the rest of the rights can
only manifest if the right to life is protected efficiently. The courts have interpreted this article
many times to demand that every individual get all the peripheral rights manifesting in Article 21
for an unobstructed life and living. It ensues that no person be deprived of life and personal
liberty without fair and reasonable procedure established by law
Harmonious co-existence of all these articles and their effects is necessary to maintain a delicate
equilibrium for wholesome protection of human rights as enshrined in the constitution of India.
While Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, Article 19 protects freedom of speech and
expression, and Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty, their synergy prevents
arbitrary application of the law, as observed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and many other
cases.

3|Page
 Application of Rule

1. Before the enactment of the Passports Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport
whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle abroad. Also, the executives
were entirely discretionary while issuing the passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.
In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam (1967) , the Supreme Court stated that “personal
liberty” in its ambit also includes the right of locomotion and travel abroad. Hence, no person
can be deprived of such rights except through procedures established by law. Since the State had
not made any law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a person in such a case, the
confiscation of the petitioner’s passport is in violation of Article 21, and its grounds being
unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also in violation of Article 14.
2. Further, clause (c) of Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, provides that when the state finds
it necessary to seize the passport or take any such action in the interests of sovereignty and
integrity of the nation, its security, its friendly relations with foreign countries, or the interests of
the general public, the authority is required to record in writing the reason for such act and, on-
demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of the passport.
3. The Central Government never disclosed any reasons for impounding the petitioner’s passport;
rather, she was told that the act was done in “the interests of the general public,”. The reason was
given explicitly that it was not really necessarily done in the public interest, and no ordinary
person would understand the reasons for not disclosing this information or the grounds for her
passport confiscation.
4. “The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not distinctive nor mutually
exclusive.” Any law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to stand a test of one or more
of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, “ex-
hypothesis” must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be projected into the procedure.
5. The phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by law” instead of “due process of law,”
which is said to have procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
6. There is a clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice, i.e., audi
alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair and unjust even when a statute is
silent on it.
7. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967, is not violative of any fundamental rights, especially
Article 14. In the present case, the petitioner is not discriminated against in any manner under

4|Page
 Article 14 because the statute provided unrestricted powers to the authorities. The ground of “in
the interests of the general public” is not vague and undefined, rather it is protected by certain
guidelines which can be borrowed from Article 19.
8. It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of violation of any rights of an individual and
when the State has violated it. But that does not mean, Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression is exercisable only in India and not outside. Merely because state action is restricted
to its territory, it does not mean that Fundamental Rights are also restricted in a similar manner.
9. It is possible that certain rights related to human values are protected by fundamental rights, even
if they are not explicitly written in our Constitution. For example, Freedom of the press is
covered under Article 19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned there.
10. The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free Speech and Expression as both have
different natures and characters.
11. A.K Gopalan was overruled stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of
Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in Gopalan,
the majority held that these provisions in themselves are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to
correct its earlier mistake, the court held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and are
dependent on each other.

Conclusion

As a whole, what started as a mere action of seizing a journalist’s passport led to a judgment
which has been precedential in every way and has led to many international jurisdictions taking
inspiration from the case and appreciating the judgment for its progressive and transformative
outlook on constitutional ideals. It is necessary to understand that the role of the state is to
protect and preserve the life of every individual, but the courts stated that the obligation of the
state is not merely limited to the physical existence of the person but also towards the necessary
means of sustaining life and living a life with dignity. It is essential for the state to make
provisions for sustaining the life of an individual by entrusting them with rights peripheral to
Article 21, i.e., right to sleep, right to food, right to livelihood, right to clean air and water, right
to privacy and many more. The courts also highlighted the necessity of natural justice in the
process of depriving an individual of their personal liberty by providing individuals with an

5|Page
opportunity to be heard in a fair and reasonable manner. Therefore, the case also highlighted the
role of the judiciary in scrutinising such administrative and executive action to prevent the
arbitrary and partial exercise of their powers. It has been observed in the recent times that such
an interpretation of fundamental rights in Maneka Gandhi has led to many PILs and cases where
individuals are seeking redressal for violations of their fundamental rights and are aware of their
constitutional entitlements, which leads to a healthy democracy and hopeful future.

6|Page