Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India And Fundamental Rights
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act without providing her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the government’s action violated her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law must be "fair, just and reasonable," not arbitrary or oppressive. It expanded the interpretation of Article 21, ruling that "life and personal liberty" must include the right to live with human dignity and cannot be taken away without due process.
Significance:
Overruled the earlier narrow interpretation of Article 21.
Introduced the principle that Procedure established by law must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness.
Strengthened the protection of fundamental rights, emphasizing the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
The case involved the challenge to constitutional amendments that affected fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure or framework.
Significance:
Protects the fundamental rights and essential features of the Constitution.
Ensures that fundamental rights cannot be completely abrogated by constitutional amendments.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts:
The government attempted to amend the Constitution to restrict property rights.
Issue:
Whether Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368.
Judgment:
The Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. Fundamental rights were beyond the amending power.
Significance:
Initially restricted Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights.
Later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati but important in the evolution of fundamental rights protection.
4. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
Facts:
The case challenged the constitutionality of police surveillance on Kharak Singh.
Issue:
Whether the surveillance violated the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court interpreted "personal liberty" in Article 21 to include the right to privacy. The Court held that the surveillance was unconstitutional.
Significance:
Early recognition of the right to privacy as part of personal liberty.
Laid the foundation for later judgments on privacy and personal freedoms.
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
The petitioners, pavement dwellers in Mumbai, challenged their eviction without rehabilitation.
Issue:
Whether the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. Eviction without providing alternate shelter violated Article 21.
Significance:
Expanded Article 21 to cover socio-economic rights.
Emphasized that the State cannot deprive citizens of their livelihood arbitrarily.
Summary
| Case | Key Issue | Contribution to Fundamental Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Due process under Article 21 | Procedure must be fair and just; expanded scope of personal liberty |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala | Power of Parliament to amend Constitution | Established Basic Structure Doctrine protecting fundamental rights |
| Golak Nath v. Punjab | Amendability of fundamental rights | Limited Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights (later overruled) |
| Kharak Singh v. UP | Right to privacy and surveillance | Recognized privacy as part of personal liberty |
| Olga Tellis v. BMC | Right to livelihood under Article 21 | Right to livelihood is part of the right to life |
RELATED Blog
0 comments