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

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

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013]
Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.3261 OF 2011]
Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee, [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.217 OF 2011]
Harminder Kaur & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3337-3361 OF 2009]
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1091 OF 2006]
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs G.V. Chandrashekhar, [CIVIL APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2009]
Darshan Lal Nagpal & Ors vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11169 OF 2011]
Rajesh Kumar vs State Th:Govt Of Nct Of Delhi, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1871-1872 OF 2011]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2271 2010]
Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... vs Bachan Singh, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4903 OF 2009]
Namit Sharma vs Union Of India, [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 210 of 2012]
I.R.Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [Appeal (civil) 1344-45 of 1976]
Competition Commission Of India vs Steel Authority Of India & Anr., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.7779 OF 2010]
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi, [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) D.NO. 16039 OF 2011]
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka, [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6520 OF 2003]
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Prasad, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1961 OF 2010]
M/S. Nagarjuna Construction Co. ... vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2004]
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare ... vs Central Valuation Board & Ors., [Appeal (civil) 5519-5520 of 2007]
Md.Shahabuddin vs State Of Bihar & Ors., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.591 OF 2010]
Delhi Jal Board vs National Campaign Etc.& Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.5322 OF 2011]
M/S Kulja Industries Ltd vs Chief Gen.Manager W.T.Proj.Bsnl., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8944 OF 2013]
Uma Nath Pandey & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009]
Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt ... vs Home Secretary And Ors., [SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 122 OF 2011]
Mohd.Yunus Khan vs State Of U.P.& Ors., []
Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd vs Chembur Service Station, [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2276 OF 2011]
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another, [Appeal (civil) 1897 of 2003]
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors., [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.68 OF 2008]
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State Of Maharashtra, [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1728 of 2007]
Society For Un-Aided P.School Of ... vs U.O.I & Anr., [WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 95 OF 2010]
Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2009]
Mohan Lal & Anr vs State Of Punjab, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 878-879 OF 2011]
Ila Vipin Pandya vs Smita Ambalal Patel & Anr., [Appeal (civil) 5735 of 2005]
Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5892 OF 2006]
Union Of India And Ors vs Major S.P. Sharma And Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2951-2957 OF 2001]
A.K.Behera vs Union Of India & Anr., [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261 of 2007]
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7631 OF 2002]
Raja Ram Pal vs The Honble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., [Writ Petition (civil) 1 of 2006]
M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., []
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2007]
Baby Devassy Chully @ Bobby vs Union Of India And Ors., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 866 OF 2008]
U.P. State Electricity Board vs Pooran Chandra Pandey & Others, [Appeal (civil) 3765 of 2001]
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi, [Appeal (civil) 8270 of 2001]
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors., [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.68 OF 2008]
Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr., [Appeal (crl.) 521 of 2007]
M/S Sahara India (Firm),Lucknow vs Commissioner Of Income, [Appeal (civil) 2783 of 2008]
Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr., [Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004]
Vakil Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2009]
Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors., [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1067 OF 2008]
Som Mittal vs Govt. Of Karnataka, [Appeal (crl.) 206 of 2008]
V.Subramaniam vs Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao, [CIVIL APPEAL NO.7438 OF 2000]
Automotive Tyre Manufactureres ... vs The Designated Authority & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2006]
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs State Of M.P. And Ors., [Transfer Petition (crl.) 175 of 2007]
M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.24 OF 2009]
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Commtt.For Protect,Democratic., [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6249-6250 0F 2001]
State Of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.117 OF 2006]
Ranjan Dwivedi vs C.B.I Tr.Director General, [Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 OF 2011]
Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL No. 8325 OF 2011]
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors., [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 55 OF 2013]
Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors., [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 12981 OF 2008]
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel & Retaurants Assn.& ..., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705 OF 2006]
State Rep.By Insepctor Of ... vs N.S. Gnaneswaran, [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2008]
Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi & Anr., [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38 OF 1997]
Subrata Roy Sahara vs Uoi & Ors., [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 57 OF 2014]
Tika Ram & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2650-2652 OF 1998]
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India And Others, [Writ Petition (civil) 580 of 2003]
National Legal Ser.Auth vs Union Of India & Ors., [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 OF 2012]
Official Liquidator vs Dayananad & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.2985 OF 2007]
Surendra Mohan Arora vs Hdfc Ltd. & Ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF 2014]

INTRODUCTION:

This case is a landmark judgement which played the most significant role towards the transformation of the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21. This case is always read and linked with A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case, because this case revolves around the concept of“personal liberty” which first came up for consideration in the A.K. Gopalan’s case.

JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CASE-

This case was decided by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1978.

The judges involved in the case were-

M.H. Beg, C.J.

P.N. Bhagwati.

Y.V. Chandrachud.

V.R. Krishna Iyer.

N.L. Untwalia.

P.S. Kai asam.

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.

FACTS OF THE CASE–

The factual summary of this case is as follows-

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general public. Later, a writ petitionwas filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the government of India as violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE–

The main issues of this case were as follows-

Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.

Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21of the constitution.

Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the principle of natural justice.

JUDGEMNT OF TEH CASE–

To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport authority to impound a passport “in the interest of the general public”, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.

Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.

Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe ‘procedure’ within the meaning of that article and the procedure practiced is worst.

Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).

A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.

Case Note:
(i) Constitution - validity of provision - Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 10 (3) (c) of Passports Act, 1967 - validity of Section 10 (3) (c) challenged - procedure in Article 21 means procedure which conforms to principles of natural justice - power conferred under Section 10 (3) (c) not unguided and it is implied in it that rules of natural justice would be applicable - held, Section 10 (3) (c) not violative of Article 21.

(ii) Right of dignity - right to live is not merely confined to physical existence - it includes within its ambit right to live with human dignity.

(iii) Inter-relationship - principle of reasonableness provided under Article 14 must apply to procedure as contemplated under Article 21 - Article 21 controlled by Article 19 also - in case a law does not infringe Article 21 even then it has to meet challenges of Articles 14 and 19.

(iv) Post-decisional hearing - petitioner's passport impounded and not given pre-decisional notice and hearing - Government contended that rule audi alteram partem must be excluded because it may have frustrated very purpose of impounding passport - concept of post-decisional hearing developed to maintain balance between administrative efficiency and fairness to individual - Court stressed that fair opportunity of being heard following immediately Order impounding passport would satisfy mandate of natural justice.

The passport of the petitioner was impounded in public interest by an order dated July 2, 1977 under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Government of India having declined in the interests of general public to furnish to her the reasons for its decision, she filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondent in the counter-affidavit stated that the petitioner’s passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required in connection with the proceedings before a Commission of Inquiry, which was then functioning.

The case was heard by a 7-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court and 5 different opinions were delivered. The leading opinion was delivered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati on behalf of 3 Judges. In view of the statement made by the Attorney General saying that the Government was agreeable to considering any representation that may be made by the petitioner in respect of the impounding of her passport and giving her an opportunity in the matter, the Supreme Court did not consider it necessary to formally interfere with the impugned Order. However, the Court interpreted important provisions of the Constitution that have far-reaching impact. It was held as under:

Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. However, it was held that it is covered neither in the right under 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) nor under 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade, business, profession or calling).
Fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution are not distinct and not mutually exclusive.
Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of “personal liberty” and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21, such law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that article. Now, if a law depriving a person of “personal liberty” and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex-hypothesi it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.
The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it .would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.
Law in Article 21 affecting personal liberty must satisfy the test of one or more of the rights under Article 19 and the test of reasonableness under Article 14.
Right to go abroad, an aspect of personal liberty, cannot be curtailed without reasonable opportunity to show-cause.
Procedure in Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive or unreasonable. Such procedure has to be just, fair and reasonable.
Rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3)(c) of Passports Act, 1967.
The soul of natural justice is “fair-play in action” and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. The inquiry must always be: does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected? Now, if this be the test of applicability of the doctrine of natural justice, there can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for this purpose. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice, or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. The law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.
Rules of natural justice apply as much to administrative action which entails civil consequences as to quasi-judicial and judicial functions. However, these rules are flexible enough to permit modifications and variations required by the situation. Thus, the area of application of the principles of natural justice was expanded and it was held that these rules can be restricted only if they are likely to paralyse the administrative process and defeat the urgency of the measure.

RELATED Blog

Your Message

0 comments

Load more comments