MANEKA
GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA (1978)
Full name of the case:-
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi
v.
Union of India and ors.
Citation:- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and ors.
(1978)1, SCC 248
Author- Archana Gupta, B.A.LLB(Hons), S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
Abstract:-
The [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India][1] was the landmark judgement, came
into force on 25th, January,
1978. It was a historic case which highlighted the significance of ‘Right to Life’, mentioned under Article 21 because in this case the
fundamental Right to Life of the petitioner was infringed and also she was
unlawfully detained and restricted to travel abroad. Her passport was also
seized by the government authority without giving any lawful justification due
to which her fundamental right under Article
19 was infringed. For seeking the compensation, she directly approached to
the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 for the enforcement of her
fundamental right.
Moreover,
the principle of ‘Golden Triangle Rule’
was also established. It was a benchmark case which overruled the precedent
case [A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras][2] in which it was held that the
fundamental right ( Article 14, Article
19, and Article 21) were
exclusive and independent from each other and there is neither any kind of
interrelation among this Articles. But in present case, the interconnectness
was established among these Articles.
Additionally, the difference between Process of Law and Procedure established by Law was also enshrined in this milestone
judgement because when the Authority unconstitutionally confiscated her
passport without giving her any reason as well as she condemned to be heard,
she requested to the Apex Court that
Procedure established by Law must comply with principles of natural justice.
Keywords:-
Right
to life and liberty, Golden triangle rule, process of law, procedure
established by law, natural justice, Audi alteram partem, interest of general
public, Equality before Law, Freedom of speech and expression etc.
Primary Details:-
|
Jurisdiction:- |
Supreme Court of India. |
|
Case Number:- |
Writ Petition No. 231 of 1977. |
|
Case filed on:- |
2nd, July, 1977. |
|
Judgement delivered on:- |
25th, January, 1978. |
|
Petitioner:- |
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi. |
|
Respondent:- |
Union of India and Ors. |
|
Bench:- |
Judgement Delivered By:- Justice P.N. Bhagwati. Justice N.L. Untwalia. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. Separate Concurring Judgements:- Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. Dissenting Opinion:- Justice P.S. Kailasam. |
|
Legal Provisions Involved:- |
Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, Article
22, Section 10(3)(c) of The Passports Act, 1967. |
|
Case summary prepared by:- |
Archana Gupta S.S. Khanna Girls’ Degree College, prayagraj. ( Constituent of University of Allahabad) |
Brief facts of the case:-
[Mrs.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Ors][3].
was a milestone judgement which gave new direction to the Articles of the
Indian Constitution. This was a turning point of the precedent case A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras. In this case it was held that there is no
interconnectness among the Articles 14, 19, 21 where as in the present case,
interrelation was established among these Articles popularly known as ‘Golden Triangle Rule’.
The case came before the Court with the facts
that the passport of the plaintiff, Maneka
Gandhi, was issued on 1, June, 1976
under [The Passports Act, 1967][4].
Eventually her passport was requisitioned by the Regional Passport Officer on 2nd,
July, 1977. When she raised questions about her confiscated passport, The Minister of External Affairs denied
to give any lawful justification and said that it is seized in the interest of
general public.
Since, her passport was unconstitutionally
confiscated due to which she couldn’t travel to abroad, as well as she was
unlawfully restrained within the country, due to which her fundamental Right to
life and personal Liberty was infringed under Article 21. Furthermore, her fundamental Right to freedom of speech
and Expression was infringed under the Article
19 because she condemned to be heard. Moreover, she was unlawfully detained
within the country, due to which Article
22 of the Indian constitution has violated. Also Article 14 has been violated which provides Equality before the Law
and Equal Protection of the Laws within the territory of India.
Eventually, when she did not get any lawful
justification about her impounded passport and aggrieved by her infringed
fundamental rights which guaranteed by the Indian Constitution to its citizens,
she directly approached to the Apex
Court under Article 32.
Issue before the Court:-
The
issue came before the Court in the case Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India that since the Government Authority confiscated
her passport without giving her any lawful justification, so the question
raised before the Court that is it lawful to seize her passport? Whether the
impounded passport of the petitioner has violated her fundamental right?
Next issue came before the court that is there
any interrelation among the Articles 14,
19, 21 because in the precedent case A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras it was held that these Articles are exclusive
and independent from each other but in the present case it was raised that
there is any interrelation among these Articles.
Other issue came with the facts that whether Section 10(3)(c) of The Passports Act, 1967 is a violation of the fundamental rights
because above stated Section of the said Act states that Passport Authority can
revoke a passport if it is necessary to do so in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the general public, friendly relations with foreign
countries, the security of India. Further it states, Passport Authority can
impound a passport if constantly used of this, imposed threat on the National
interests. Hence it was raised whether it infringed the fundamental rights of
the petitioner or not?
Last issue was raised that there is lack of natural justice in this case as well as
the Procedure established by Law and The Process of Law had not done
according to the Statute. In the present case, the petitioner was condemned to
be heard, since everyone should get equal chance to be heard before the Court
also the petitioner has right to know the reasons about her impounded passport
but in this case she did not get chance. It shows that there is lack of natural
justice also it is against the maxim Audi
Alteram Partem, which states that ‘hear
the other side’, is a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Argumets of the parties:-
Petitioner’s Contention:-
Petitoner,
Maneka Gandhi argued that her
‘personal liberty’ was hampered under Article
21 because she was unconstitutionally detained due to which her ‘right to
travel abroad’ was infringed. She argued further that no person can be deprived
except according to the procedure prescribed by law.
Since, petitioner did not get equal opportunity
and also the Government Authority
did not give lawful justification about her confiscated passport, due to which
her Article 14 has been violated.
Moreover, she also argued that it is against the Latin maxim Audi Alteram
Partem because she is condemned to be heard.
Further, it was also argued that her ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ was
infringed under Article 19 because
when she raised the question about her impounded passport, then the Authority
denied to give any reasonable reasons and also it was said by them that it is
in ‘interest of general public’.
Moreover, it was also argued that her Article 22 has been violated because
she unlawfully detained within the territory of country. Since, she could not
travel to abroad due to unreasonable confiscated passport due to which her above said Article
was infringed.
It also argued that Passports Act, 1967 is Ultra
Vires because it violates the ‘right to life and liberty’ of the
petitioner.
Defendant’s Contention:-
The Attorney General of India argued
that right to travel abroad does not fall under any clause of Article 19 and hence this Article is
independent of proving the reasonable action taken by the Central Government.
Further, it was also argued that petitioner
should be present before the committee for an enquiry but she did not do so
hence her passport was seized. Beside this, Section 10(3)(c) of 1967 Act laid down the provisions that authority can
confiscate the passport of the holder for the ‘interest of the general public’
and ‘safety of the country’ hence it is not unconstitutional to impound the
passport of the petitioner.
Legal Aspects Involved:-
First
legal provision was that Article 14, 19,
and 21 must be read together because
they are not exclusive or independent rather they are interrelated with each
other. Article 21 is wide in
itself because it protects Right to Life and personal Liberty. It
also found in many cases like [K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India][5], (2017)
which stated that Article 21
includes right to privacy also. Besides it, in [Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India][6],
(2018) which dealt with right to sexual orientation as an extension of
right to life and liberty.
Next provision was that no person can be
unlawfully detained within the country because it is the violation of Article 22 provided by the Indian
Constitution and also it infringed Article
14 which states that everyone is Equal
before Law.
Moreover, Procedure
of Law was also established in present case. This rule is recognized in the
case [Lochner v. New York][7]. It
emphasizes that depriving of someone’s liberty should be reasonable, fair and
should be based on natural justice.
Also provision evolved with the facts that there
should be follow the maxim Audi Alteram
Partem which means that ‘no person could be condemned to be heard’. In
current case, it is against the rule of
this maxim.
Judgements:-
The judgement delivered by Justices P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, and
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali on 25th,
January, 1978, with the ratio of 6:1.
It was in the favour of petitioner with the facts that although Section 10(3)(c) of 1967 Act gives
power to Authority to seize the passport in the interest of the Nation but
after this judgement, Authority is required to record in writing the reason for
such act and give copy of that record to passport holder.
Also, it was held that there is infringement of
the basic ingredient of principles of natural
justice i.e. Audi Alteram Partem
and hence it cannot be condemned as unjust and unfair even when a statute is
silent on it.
Moreover, it was also held that Section 10(3)(c) of 1967 Act does not
infringed any fundamental right of the petitioner specially Article 14 because authorities have
unrestricted power provided by Statute. Hence, the petitioner is not
discriminated specially under Article
14.
The judgement also overruled the case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950),
stating that there is a unique relation between the provisions of articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court held that these
provisions are not mutually exclusive rather they are interrelated.
Impact and Significance:-
This
was a landmark judgement which broadening the Article 21, stating that the ‘personal liberty’ is not just a
freedom from physical restraint rather it also encompasses freedom of
expression and other fundamental rights.
Also the concept of Golden Triangle Rule was established which interlinks Articles 14, 19, and 21. It means any law depriving the
liberty of the person should be fair, reasonable, and comply with all these
Articles.
Furthermore, it emphasize the importance of
principles of ‘natural justice’, which means that there should be fair and just
procedures whenever individuals aggrieved by state actions. Eventually, this
case also overruling the A.K. Gopalan
case and established the links among Articles
14, 19, and 21.
Conclusion:-
This
case was the milestone judgement for the Indian Judiciary System because it
emphasized the judicial review on the powers of the authorities. It also
widened the scope of Article 21, stating
that every individual has fundamental right to live with dignity. Also the
principles of ‘natural justice’ was established. Lord Parker defined it as “the
duty to act fairly” and Justice P.N.
Bhagwati defined it as “fair play in
action”. It secured
the fundamental rights of the citizens.
References:-
●
https://www.manupatracademy.com
● https://passportindia.gov.in
[1] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597,
1978 SCR(2)627, 1978 SCC(1) 248.
[2] AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950)51 Cri LJ
1383.
[3] 1978, AIR 597.
[4] The Passport Act, 1967 [Act 15 of 1967].
[5] (2017)10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
[6] AIR 2018 SC 4321, (2018)10 SCC 1.
[7] New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
Post a Comment