Faculty Of Law

Assignment 1: Constitutional Law II

Topic : Case Analysis of Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Dr. Mirza Juned Beg Asra Nayyar

Assistant Professor 2200103344

Faculty of Law. BALLB 3RD Year

Integral University,

Lucknow
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Mirza Juned Beg Sir for his invaluable
guidance and support throughout the completion of this assignment on the Maneka Gandhi
vs. Union of India case. His insights and feedback were instrumental in deepening my
understanding of the topic.

I also extend my thanks to my friends for their encouragement and assistance throughout this
process.

1
 INTRODUCTION

The ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, delivered by a seven-judge bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on January 25, 1978, marked a significant shift in the interpretation of
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This landmark decision transformed the
Indian Constitution and ushered in a new era of personal liberty. It serves as a guiding light,
adding new dimensions to the understanding of Part III of the Constitution, which deals with
fundamental rights.

As one of the Supreme Court's most progressive rulings, the principles established in this case
remain relevant today. It signified a shift in the judiciary's approach to interpreting the scope
of the right to life under the Constitution, moving from a rigid, literal interpretation to a more
purposive and expansive one.

2
Facts of the Case:

In the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case, the petitioner (Maneka Gandhi) was a journalist
who was about to travel to another country for some of her official business. Because of this
purpose, it was applied for the passport by the petitioner under the Indian Passports Act of
1967. Later, on June 1, 1976, her passport was released. Thereafter, on July 4, 1977 a letter was
received by the petitioner from the regional passport officer informing that the passport of the
petitioner was confiscated, by the decision of the Government of India, under Section 10(3) of
the Indian Passport Act, 1967 on the grounds of “Public Interest”. Within seven days of
receiving her passport, the applicant was forced to surrender it. Maneka Gandhi wrote a letter
to the regional passport officer right away, demanding a copy of the statement about the reason
for the order, as required by section 10 of the Constitution. On the 6 th of July 1977, the
government of India’s ministry of external affairs responded, saying that the government had
agreed not to provide her with a copy of the statement of reasons for the order “in the interest
of the general public.”

As a result of it, the action of impounding of passport by the government as well as for not
providing any explanation for the same was challenged through a writ petition which was filed
by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution of India[2]. Furthermore, it was
claimed that Section 10(3)(c) is unconstitutional in nature as it infringes the fundamental right
provided under Article 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution.

Issues before the Court:

In this Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case, the following issues has been argued –

1. Is it true that Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional, and what is the scope of
such Fundamental Rights as granted to people by the Indian Constitution?

2. Whether the ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ covered under the umbrella of Article 21?

3. What is the relationship between the rights granted by India’s Constitution Articles 14,
19, and 21?

4. What is the scope of the phrase “procedure defined by law”?

5. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 a violation of Fundamental

3
6. Whether the challenged order of the Regional Passport Officer in violation of natural
justice principles?

Arguments Before the Court

By the Petitioner:

1. The right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to personal liberty, and no
citizen can be denied this right except through a legal procedure. Moreover, the
Passports Act of 1967 contains no provision for the confiscation, revocation, or
impoundment of a passport. Therefore, the government’s actions in this case are
irrational and arbitrary.
2. By failing to provide the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the Central
Government violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, the true
meaning, purpose, and security of Article 21 must be established.
3. Fundamental rights should be interpreted harmoniously to uphold the intent of the
Constituent Assembly and to give effect to the spirit of the Constitution. In this case,
Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read together to ensure justice.
4. Under such circumstances, Article 22 provides protection against unlawful arrest
and detention. By seizing the petitioner’s passport without justification, the
government effectively detained her within the country, violating her fundamental
rights.
5. The Passports Act of 1967 is ultra vires as it infringes upon the right to life and
personal liberty. Specifically, Section 10(3)(c) of the Act restricted the petitioner’s
right to travel abroad without valid grounds.

Arguments Before the Court

By the Respondent:

1. The Attorney General of India argued that the right to travel abroad is not protected
under any clause of Article 19(1). Therefore, Article 19 is irrelevant in determining
the reasonableness of the Central Government’s actions.
2. The Passports Act was never intended to infringe upon fundamental rights.
Furthermore, authorities should not be compelled to justify the confiscation or
impoundment of a passport when such actions are taken in the interest of society
and national security. Consequently, even if the statute appears to violate Article
19, it cannot be struck down.
3. Article 21 is broad in scope and encompasses the provisions of Articles 14 and 19.
A statute is deemed unconstitutional under Article 21 only if it explicitly violates
Articles 14 and 19. Therefore, the law governing passports does not violate the
Constitution.
4. Article 21 includes the phrase “procedure established by law,” and such a procedure
is not subject to a reasonableness test.

4
 5. During the drafting of the Constitution, the framers debated the American principle
of “due process of law” and the British principle of “procedure established by law.”
The deliberate omission of due process of law from the Constitution reflects the
intent of the framers, which must be upheld and respected.

Judgement:

The Maneka Gandhi case represents a significant victory for democracy, further
strengthening fundamental rights in India. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous
decision, ruled in favor of the petitioner, reinforcing and expanding the interpretation
of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling followed the precedent set in the
Satwant Singh case, in which the Court had established that the right to travel abroad
falls under the ambit of Article 21.

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice M.H. Beg and
Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, and P.S. Kailasam, delivered this landmark judgment. The key
aspects of the ruling are as follows:

1. Expanding the Scope of Article 21

Although Article 21 originally stated that personal liberty could be deprived following
a procedure established by law, the Court redefined its scope, ruling that such
procedures must be just, fair, and reasonable, free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
This interpretation significantly altered the constitutional framework.1

2. Overruling A.K. Gopalan

The Court overruled the doctrine laid down in the case of A.K. Gopalan, which had
earlier suggested that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive. The judgment
clarified that these articles are interconnected, and any law restricting personal liberty
must satisfy the conditions of all three provisions.2

3. Liberal Interpretation of Personal Liberty

The Court emphasized that “personal liberty” must not be interpreted in a narrow sense.
Instead, it should be understood in a broad and liberal manner. The judgment expanded
the scope of Article 21, instructing future courts to interpret fundamental rights in an
inclusive and evolving manner rather than restricting them through a strict textual
approach.3

4. Right to Travel Abroad as a Fundamental Right

1
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597, SCR (2) 621
2
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 27, SCR 88
3
Supreme Court judgment, Maneka Gandhi case (1978)

5
 Reaffirming the Satwant Singh case, the Court held that the right to travel abroad is a
fundamental right protected under Article 21. 4

5. Validity of the Passport Act, 1967

The Court ruled that neither Article 21 nor Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) were violated
by Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967. Additionally, it held that the
1967 amendment did not contravene Article 14. The Court dismissed the argument that
the term “in the general public interest” was ambiguous.

6. Administrative Orders and Judicial Review

The Court held that Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) of the Passport Act are administrative
orders and are thus subject to judicial review. They can be challenged on grounds such
as:

Mala fide (bad faith)

Unreasonableness

Violation of natural justice

Ultra vires (beyond legal authority)

7. Government Obligation to Provide Reasons

The Court advised the government to provide reasons whenever it revokes or impounds
a passport. It further held that the prerogative under Section 10(5) should be exercised
only in exceptional cases.

8. Fundamental Rights Beyond National Boundaries

The Court held that the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 19(1)(g)
(freedom of profession) are not confined to Indian territory but extend beyond national
boundaries.

Case Analysis:

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in this case overturned A.K. Gopalan’s
restrictive ruling, ensuring that legal procedures must be just, fair, and reasonable rather
than arbitrary. It rejected the respondent’s argument that laws need only be enacted by
the legislature, affirming instead that they must align with constitutional principles.

The Court introduced the “Golden Triangle Test,” linking Articles 14, 19, and 21, and
held that any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy all three provisions. Justice
Krishna Iyer stated that no article stands alone, while Justice Bhagwati emphasized

4
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967) AIR 1836

6
 that procedural laws must meet fairness and equality standards. The Court reaffirmed
that the right to travel abroad falls within Article 21, with Justice Krishna Iyer
asserting that “travel makes liberty worthwhile.”

This judgment significantly expanded the scope of Article 21, leading to the inclusion
of rights such as clean air, water, legal aid, a clean environment, a speedy trial, and
freedom from noise pollution. The verdict strengthened fundamental rights, ensuring
that courts interpret Article 21 progressively to serve public welfare and uphold
constitutional values.

Implications of a Modern-Day Judgement:

If the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case were decided today, the Supreme Court
would likely emphasize protecting individual rights even more than it did back in 1978.
Here’s how the verdict could likely unfold:

1. Stronger Protections for Personal Freedom: The Court would make it clear that any
government action that restricts a person’s freedom, like taking away their passport,
must be well-explained and follow fair processes. This would align with how
Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty) has been understood in later cases,
like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Court stressed that
personal freedoms should not be limited without fair procedures. 5
2. Privacy and Digital Rights: After the Puttaswamy case (2017), where privacy was
declared a fundamental right, the Court would likely extend this principle to cover
digital freedoms. This means protecting people from unnecessary government
surveillance and preventing overreach in controlling online activities, as digital
privacy has become more important in today’s world.6
3. Broader Understanding of Rights: The Court would probably recognize that
fundamental rights today also include things like access to the internet and fair
administrative processes. These are necessary for personal freedom in today’s
world, and the Court would likely ensure that these rights are protected under
Article 21, reflecting the importance of freedom in the digital age. 7
4. Government Accountability: There would be a stronger focus on ensuring the
government is held accountable for actions that impact people’s rights. The Court
would likely demand greater transparency, especially when it comes to sensitive
matters like restricting someone’s ability to travel. Given the Right to Information
(RTI) Act and the growing demand for transparency, the Court would insist that the
government justify any action limiting an individual’s freedom. 8
5. Right to Travel: In today’s connected world, the right to travel internationally would
be even more important. The Court would likely rule that the government cannot
deny a citizen their passport or the right to travel abroad unless there is a valid,

5
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
6
Puttaswamy, supra note 1.
7
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
8
Right to Information Act, 2005.

7
 legitimate reason. This would reflect the increasingly global nature of personal
rights.9

Conclusion:

The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case expanded the interpretation of Article
21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court ruled
that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and cannot be
arbitrarily restricted by the government. The case also established that Articles 14
(equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (personal liberty) are
interconnected, requiring any law that restricts personal liberty to comply with all
three provisions.

The Court overruled the previous restrictive view in A.K. Gopalan, stating that the
procedures for depriving personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, not
arbitrary. The judgment reinforced the idea that government actions affecting
fundamental rights must be transparent and based on valid grounds.

In modern times, this judgment would likely further emphasize the protection of
individual rights, including privacy and digital freedoms, and the need for greater
transparency and accountability in government actions. The ruling remains a critical
development in Indian constitutional law, promoting a progressive interpretation of
fundamental rights.

Refrences :

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
3. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1807346.pdf
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7094-case-analysis-on-
maneka-gandhi-v-s-union-of-india-1978-the-golden-triangle.html
5. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/maneka-gandhi-case-1978-sc-judgements/

9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.