MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF INDIA (1978)

Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner, was a journalist whose passport was granted on June 1, 1976,
in accordance with the 1967 Passport Act.Later, on July 2, 1977, the petitioner received a lett
er from the Regional Passport Officer in New Delhi requesting that she turn in her passport.
The Ministry of External Affairs refused to provide any explanation "in the interest of the bro
ader public" when questioned about the reasons behind the confiscation of her passport.
In light of this, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution,
claiming that the size of her passport violated her fundamental rights, particularly those guara
nteed by Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression), an
d 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
The respondent retorted that the petitioner had to appear in person in order to participate in th
e ongoing proceedings before an investigation committee. Parties identified:
Maneka Gandhi petitioned;
Union of India and others responded;
judgment date: January 25, 1978
M.H. Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Mu
rtaza Fazal Ali, and P.S. Kailasam were in front of the bench. The Court's issues include:
• Are the fundamental rights guaranteed to Indian citizens by the Constitution unconditional
or subject to conditions?
• How far do these rights extend geographically?
• Does the "Right to Travel Abroad" fall under the purview of Article 21 as a supplementary
and related right?.
• How do the rights protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution (the Golde
n Triangle Principle) relate to one another?
• What does the term "Procedure established by Law" as it appears in Article 21 mean?
• Does the Passport Act of 1967's Section 10(3)(c) violate fundamental rights, and if so, is it a
concrete law?
• Does the contested Regional Passport Officer's order violate natural justice principles?

The Petitioner's Argument:

:1. The "Right to Travel Abroad" is derived from the "personal liberty" right, and it may only
be taken away from any citizen in accordance with the legal process.
Furthermore, there is no process outlined in the Passports Act of 1967 for seizing, canceling,
or impoundeding a passport. It is therefore irrational and capricious.
2. In addition, by denying the petitioner a chance to be heard, the Central Government violate
d Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.Therefore, it is necessary to establish the genuine mea
ning of Article 21, as well as its nature and protection.
3. All legal processes must adhere to the "principles of natural justice" and be free from arbitr
ary decisions.
4. Fundamental Rights must be read in accordance with one another in order to preserve the i
ntent of the Constituent Assembly and to implement the spirit of our Constitution; in this inst
ance, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution must be read collectively.
5. Every citizen is entitled to fundamental rights simply by virtue of their humanity, and the s
tate is prohibited from abusing them.
Therefore, in order to offer the best protection, these fundamental rights must to be wide-
ranging and all-encompassing.
6. The Constituent Assembly established acceptable constraints from clauses (2) to (6) in Arti
cle 19 of the Indian Constitution because a well-ordered and civilized society requires the fre
edoms granted to its inhabitants to be governed.
However, in this instance, the constraints imposed do not offer any justification for execution.
7. In some circumstances, Article 22 provides protection from arrest and imprisonment.
In this instance, the government unlawfully held the petitioner within the nation by seizing he
r passport without giving her any justification.
8In Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. (1962), it was decided that the phrase "personal liberty
" is used in the constitution to refer to all the many types of rights related to personal liberty, r
egardless of whether they are mentioned in a number of Article 19(1) clauses.
9. "Audi Alteram Partem," which states that everyone must be given a fair chance to be heard
—not only the petitioner—is a fundamental component of natural justice.
10. The 1967 Passports Act is extra vires because it infringes against the "Right to Life and L
iberty." The clause in Section 10(3)
(c) of the Act of 1967 prohibited the petitioner from traveling overseas.
11. Because the judiciary plays a crucial role in examining the legality of executive actions an
d orders, the petitioner emphasized the significance of judicial review in matters involving ad
ministrative action and law.
By doing this, the petitioner asked the court to review the ruling that resulted in the confiscati
on of her passports and to determine whether or not it was constitutional.
12. The petitioner also drew a parallel with other jurisdictions and emphasized the norms set f
orth by international human rights law.
It declared that limiting international travel is a blatant breach of international law standards a
nd that the right to free movement across borders is a universally acknowledged right.
It made the case that national and international laws must be harmonized.

Arguments made by the respondent:

::1. The Attorney General of India contended that Article 19 is independent of demonstrating
the rationality of the Central Government's conduct since the "Right to Travel Abroad" was n
ever addressed by any of its provisions (1).
2. The Passports Act was not passed with the intention of negatively impacting basic rights in
any way.
Additionally, for the sake of national security and the general welfare, the government should
n't be forced to disclose the reasons for passport seizures or impoundments.
Therefore, even if the statute violated Article 19, it shouldn't be overturned.
3. In addition, the petitioner's passport was seized since she had to appear before a committee
for an investigation.
4. The respondent argued that the word law under Article 21 cannot be understood in light of
the fundamental principles of natural justice, restating the position established in A.K. Gopala
n v. State of Madras (1950).
5. In addition, the natural justice tenets are unclear and imprecise.
Therefore, such unclear and obscure laws should not be referred to as part of the constitution.
6. The provisions of Articles 14 and 19 are contained within the very broad Article 21.
However, only when a measure directly violates Articles 14 and 19 may it be declared uncons
titutional under Article 21. Therefore, the law pertaining to passports is constitutional.
7. The wording of Article 21 refers to "process established by law," which does not necessaril
y required to pass the reasonability test.
8. The respondent also declared that the government has an obligation to safeguard its interest
s and that the petitioner's passport was seized due to national security concerns.
They maintained that in order to avoid future attacks and maintain public order, such limitatio
ns on overseas travel are crucial.
9. The American "due process of law" and the British "procedure established by law" were ho
tly disputed by the drafters of this Constitution.
The framers' intentions are reflected in the glaring lack of due process of law in the Constituti
on's provisions. It is necessary to preserve and honor the framers' spirit and intellect.
revered and safeguarded.
10. The respondent emphasized that the impoundment of passports was carried out under "ex
ecutive discretion" because it was required at a time when security concerns were rapidly gro
wing and may potentially disrupt public order. Thus, the choice to execute was warranted.

Comprehending Article 21 of the Constitution of India :

The Indian Constitution is the ultimate law of the land and is regarded as the center of all othe
r laws.The Latin dictum "salus populis suprema lex" sums up the significance of constitutiona
l principles and how they regulate India's legal system.The fundamental rights outlined in the
Indian constitution are therefore the best defense available to all citizens against the governm
ent and any action taken by the state that interferes with the full exercise of the rights guarant
eed to all citizens by the constitution.Any legislation that infringes upon a person's fundament
al rights is unconstitutional and unenforceable.In a similar vein, Article 21 of the Indian Cons
titution, which safeguards a person's "Right to Life and Personal Liberty," is among the most
important and vital clauses of all the fundamental rights.
Article 21 has a very broad and comprehensive scope because of its implicit importance, and
the supreme court has interpreted it in numerous cases.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which we covered earlier, is one such instance.
Since the right to life and liberty must be interpreted to include the right to privacy, it is cruci
al to realize that the peripheral and concomitant rights attached to the article are so extensive t
hat the court is still learning about many aspects of the provision from recent cases like K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which
addressed the right to sexual orientation as an extension of the right to life and liberty.
Therefore, it is safe to say that Article 21 and its role in encapsulating the state's commitment
to protecting an individual's life and liberty were given a great deal of weight by the framers
of the Indian Constitution. Through dynamic interpretation, the judiciary has recognized the r
ange of rights that must develop in order for every individual to enjoy their right to life and li
berty.Furthermore, numerous cases have attempted to address additional rights, such as the ri
ght to a clean environment, air, water, sleep, livelihood, etc., which are crucial components of
life that are required to support life itself, just as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India addressed
the right to go outside.
The courts have often reminded the authorities that the right to life is not just the right to exist
physically, but also the right to live a life of dignity and to have access to all the things that o
ne needs to live.It is impossible to overlook the judiciary's contribution to broadening the sco
pe of Article 21.In order to keep up with the growing world and new ideas, efforts have been
made to broaden the interpretations of Article 21.In order to counteract the negative conseque
nces of contemporary changes on human rights, transformative constitutionalism—the belief
that constitutional safeguards must be reviewed, reconsidered, and expanded—must be imple
mented. Law must evolve with society.
The courts have also often tried to define "personal liberty" to include the freedom of choice
combined with the need to respect the person or property of others.
The rights to privacy, freedom of movement, and livelihood have all been successfully interpr
eted by the courts as part of personal liberty.
The clause aims to stop anyone from being arbitrarily detained and emphasizes the need of ad
hering to due process, which includes the laws, rules, and procedures that must be followed b
efore someone is lawfully detained with good cause.

Comparative evaluation of Article 21: due process versus legally

mandated procedure :
All major jurisdictions, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada
, Australia, and others, recognize the right to live a life with dignity in a similar way, making
the right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution an internatio
nally recognized right.When it comes to comparison, the only distinction is between the India
n and American jurisdictions.The terms "due process of law" and "procedure established by l
aw" are being compared in order to deny someone their personal freedom.
In the instance of Maneka Gandhi, this analogy was mostly noted.

American due process:

The United States of America follows the due process doctrine, which is a consequence of the
14th Amendment of 1868.The lawmakers stated that there are protected interests of an indivi
dual that are deprived from him when he is deprived of his personal liberty and detained.
The courts initially protected this interest through a concept termed “procedural due process,”
which required adherence to established method for depriving liberty and following a set of st
andards as prescribed by law to assess if the deprivation of liberty was lawful or not.The conc
ept of "substantive due process" was formed by the courts during the development of this ide
a.This idea made it possible for the courts to actively defend an individual's fundamental right
to life and liberty and to stop government meddling.It asks, "Is the deprivation of liberty warr
anted and fair?" going beyond protocol.When substantive due process is used, the fairness an
d rationality considerations are taken into consideration.The Lochner v. New York case (1905
) was the main instance when this strategy was acknowledged.
Simply said, procedural due process examines if the government's acts followed the establish
ed processes, whereas substantive due process asks if the government's actions when denying
someone their liberty were fair, reasonable, and just.It gives the impression that the person ha
s a chance to be heard before being placed in custody.Even in the face of fierce opposition an
d criticism, substantive due process is frequently used, even if procedural due process is the n
orm.

The legal process in India:

The Indian legal system operates under the tenet that the government must adhere to the legal
process while denying someone their personal freedom.This idea is comparable to American l
aw's notion of procedural due process.It included any process established by the Indian gover
nment.In the landmark decision of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court of In
dia ruled that the creators of the constitution intended to closely adhere to the process establis
hed by the legislature and nothing else.Simply following the steps outlined in a legislation tha
t has been passed is sufficient.
Following nearly thirty years, the courts overturned the Gopalan case's ruling in the Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India case, holding that the "method" defined in Article 21 must be a fair
and reasonable process and cannot be arbitrary in any way.
According to the court, the process needs to comply with Article 14, which addresses the righ
t to equality.According to J. M. Hameedulla, "Due process of law requires a judicial review o
f the activity of administrative or executive personnel insofar as constitutional rights are conc
erned."The amount to which the Court should and will go in reviewing factual determinations
has been a contentious matter, although this concept is undeniable in terms of legal issues.
The judges ruled that the seizure of Maneka Gandhi's passport must be examined through the
principles of justice and reasonableness rather than only being viewed through the prism of th
e law as it was passed.Following the ruling, "procedure established by law" now has the same
impact as "substantive due process," and all cases involving the denial of liberty and violation
s of fundamental rights are now evaluated using the interconnected framework of Articles 14,
19, and 21 as well as careful judicial review.
It is also crucial to remember that substantive due process abandons the restrictive interpretati
on of fundamental rights and establishes a more comprehensive one that adequately safeguard
s them without any gaps or inconsistencies.Judicial oversight is crucial in preventing the capri
cious use of governmental power, which may result in fundamental rights abuses.
Consequently, the advancements in the interpretation of Article 21 have reshaped the realm o
f natural justice and have been referred to as the pioneers of judicial activism in a methodical
and successful way.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, and the idea of the golde
n triangle
Since it is always changing and covers a wide range of social and human rights, the Indian Co
nstitution is regarded as a living constitution.
In order to reach a comprehensive solution, it tries to strike a balance between the public inter
est, state actions, and the preservation of individual rights.
In an effort to acknowledge the requirements of a functioning democracy, the court in Manek
a Gandhi v. Union of India recognized the golden triangle of essential rights.
Let's examine the foundational elements of Articles 14, 19, and 21 that make up the Golden T
riangle.
Article 14: Through constitutional values, this specific article emphasizes the right to equalit
y before the law as a core fundamental right required for individual entitlement.
This clause guarantees that no one is subjected to discrimination of any kind by the state or it
s agents or representatives.This protection is applicable to both citizens and noncitizens, serve
s as the cornerstone of the golden triangle of fundamental rights, and demonstrates equity in t
he application of laws and regulations.
Article 19: Every Indian citizen is guaranteed the "right to freedom of speech and expression
" under this clause, with the exception of any reasonable limitations required to preserve natio
nal integrity, public health, and public order.
Since free speech and expression are essential for dissent and the development of sound gove
rnment, this freedom is critical to the viability of democracy in a community.
Every person is guaranteed equitable treatment when exercising their right to free speech and
expression thanks to the relationship between Articles 14 and 19.By allowing residents to exp
ress their ideas and opinions, this aids in maintaining homogeneity.
Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty are protected under this constitution, togethe
r with all other rights required to live a respectable life and have access to all basic necessities
.
It is the cornerstone of the golden triangle because effective protection of the right to life is n
ecessary for the manifestation of the other rights.Numerous times, the courts have construed t
his article to require that each person be granted all of the ancillary rights outlined in Article
21 in order to live an unhindered existence.As a result, no one can be deprived of their life or
personal freedom without following a fair and acceptable legal process.
To preserve a delicate balance for the comprehensive protection of human rights as guarantee
d by the Indian constitution, all of these provisions and their effects must coexist harmoniousl
y.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and numerous other instances have shown that, despite A
rticle 14's promise of equality before the law, Article 19's protection of freedom of speech an
d expression, and Article 21's guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty, their combine
d effect precludes the law from being applied arbitrarily.

Reversal of the A.K. Gopalan ruling

The primary issues in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras concerned the legality of the Preventi
ve Detention Act of 1951 and whether or not the practice of holding people in accordance wit
h the Act is covered by Article 21.Although A.K. Gopalan argued that the due process of law
should be applied to determine whether detentions are fair and reasonable, the Supreme Court
ruled that since the word "due" is not used in Article 21, following the established procedure i
s sufficient justification for detaining someone.The court ruled that when it comes to process,
the legislature has the last say.Additionally, the court ruled that Articles 19 and 21 cannot be
viewed as complementary to one another because they are mutually exclusive.It further stated
that a measure cannot be ruled unconstitutional just because it violates natural justice principl
es.In his dissenting opinion, Justice Fazl Ali claimed that the court is enabling dictatorships b
y disregarding the natural justice principles and that Articles 19 and 21 are intertwined.In the
Maneka Gandhi case, the courts upheld this critique and overturned A.K. Gopalan's ruling, ho
lding that "process defined by law" must be a fair and reasonable procedure. The application
of Article 21 goes beyond executive action and also applies to preventive detention.
Principles of natural justice must be upheld while depriving a person of their personal liberty.
This progressive judgement gave rise to judicial activism and advocated for strict judicial
scrutiny employing the golden triangle to adjudge the fairness of a procedure established by
law.