Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case Brief: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Ors. (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi, a prominent journalist and politician, had her passport impounded by the Indian government under the Passport Act, 1967.
The government revoked her passport on the grounds that it was “in the public interest” without providing detailed reasons.
Maneka Gandhi challenged this action, arguing that the government’s decision violated her fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Movement), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
The case was heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court due to the constitutional questions involved.
Legal Issues:
Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be “just, fair and reasonable” or merely “legal”.
Whether the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad.
Whether the government’s action in impounding a passport without providing reasons violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
The extent to which fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and interdependent.
Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 14: Right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 19: Protection of certain freedoms, including freedom of movement and freedom to reside anywhere in India.
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment expanding the interpretation of Article 21, holding that the right to life and personal liberty is not limited to mere animal existence but includes all facets of life that make life meaningful, including the right to travel abroad.
The Court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable and not arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful. This was a significant departure from earlier rulings that allowed any law to deprive life or liberty as long as it was a “procedure established by law.”
The Court ruled that the impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport violated her fundamental rights because the procedure followed was not fair and reasonable.
The Court also ruled that the interconnection between Articles 14, 19, and 21 means that any restriction on personal liberty must satisfy the tests of reasonableness under Article 14 and procedural fairness under Article 21.
The judgment stressed that the State cannot act arbitrarily and must provide an opportunity to be heard (principle of natural justice) before depriving a person of personal liberty.
The Court upheld that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Significance:
Expanded Interpretation of Article 21: The case marked a revolutionary shift in the understanding of Article 21, moving away from the narrow view that it only protects against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, to a broader view protecting a wide range of personal freedoms.
Principle of Reasonableness: It introduced the concept that laws affecting fundamental rights must be fair, just, and reasonable, not merely legal.
Interrelationship of Fundamental Rights: The Court clarified that Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read together, thereby giving a holistic protection to fundamental rights.
Due Process and Natural Justice: It emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard, laying the groundwork for due process principles in India.
Right to Travel Abroad: It established that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to personal liberty.
The case is often cited as a landmark in expanding the scope of fundamental rights and strengthening judicial review of executive action.
The judgment paved the way for a large body of human rights jurisprudence in India and has been cited in numerous subsequent rulings on civil liberties.
Related Case Law:
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Earlier case that held that “procedure established by law” meant any law enacted by the legislature, and there was no requirement for it to be “just, fair or reasonable.”
Maneka Gandhi overruled and expanded the scope of Article 21 beyond the strict interpretation in A.K. Gopalan.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Further expanded Article 21 to include the right to livelihood.
Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962): Earlier recognition of some personal liberties under Article 21.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): Further broadened the ambit of the right to life.
Conclusion:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark judgment that fundamentally transformed Indian constitutional law by expanding the interpretation of Article 21 to include substantive due process protections. It established that the right to life and personal liberty is wide-ranging and protects various personal freedoms, including the right to travel abroad. The case is a cornerstone for the protection of fundamental rights, requiring laws that affect liberty to be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary. It set the stage for an activist judiciary protecting human rights and enforcing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary State action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments