This case analysis attempts to analyze the historical judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978. In this case analysis the objective is to show that how the judgment has widened the scope of article 21 of the Indian Constitution and had changed the face of the Indian legal system. Personal Liberty mentioned under article 21 states that freedom from the any sort of restriction from the law.

And this case not only deals with the interpretation of article 21 of the constitution but also shows the relation between articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and gave a new dimension to look in the chapter Ⅲ of the Indian Constitution.

Introduction
The ruling of Maneka Gandhi case was handed down by the seven judge bench of the Supreme Court and this case has been marked the new beginning for the interpretation of fundamental rights provided under the Indian Constitution. The Maneka Gandhi case is considered as the land mark case in the history of Indian Legal system because this case has widened the scope of Article 21 of the Indian constitution which provides the provision for protection of life and personal liberty[1].

The decision held by the Supreme Court has been a guiding light in understanding the aspects of fundamental rights mentioned part-ⅲ of the Indian Constitution. This case deals with the principles of natural justice enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Before this case article 21 only deals with assuring the right to life and personal liberty against the arbitrary actions of the executive but after the judgment of this case the scope of article 21 has been expanded and it take actions against the legislative also for the violation of fundamental rights mentioned under article 21.

Historical Overview
The concept of personal liberty mentioned under article 21 was first seen in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950, where in this case the petitioner was detained under Preventive detention act, 1950, and he challenged the validity of his detention on the grounds of violation of article 19 (1) d.

The main issues in this case is that whether the due process model is same as the procedure established by the law and held that article 21 did not require the courts in applying the due process model.[2] After this case the Maneka Gandhi case has overruled the judgment by stating that procedure established by law should also conforms to the principles of natural justice and provided a wider interpretation of fundamental rights to the citizens of India.

And in the case of Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, 1967, it was held that right to travel abroad is within the ambit of article 21 of the Indian Constitution and passport of the person cannot be denied if there is absence of the law regulating it. And after this judgment the parliament has passed the Passports Act, 1967 to have the right procedure in issuing passport and denying the passport.[3]

Facts of the Case
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi has been issued a passport on 1st June 1976 according to the law made under Passports Act, 1967 and after a year that is on 2nd July 1977 the regional passport office of Delhi has ordered her to surrender her passport and she was not even given proper reason for restraining of her passport and the ministry of external affairs has given a reason that that her passport has been taken for the public interest.

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court and has stated that impounding of her passport without any valid reason is direct infringing right to personal liberty mentioned under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. And Maneka Gandhi has filed a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution for violation of fundamental rights mentioned under articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution and has alleged that section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is beyond one's legal authority. Section 10(3)(c) of the act states that if a person is having a passport and obtains another passport the passport authority shall impound such passport.[4]

Issues:

1. Whether right to travel abroad is covered under article 21 of the constitution?
2. Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected with each other?
3. Whether the rule laid down in section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is constitutionally valid?
4. Whether the restrictions imposed by the passport authority were in the transgression of the principles of the natural justice?

Arguments of the Petitioners:

• The petitioner has stated that the State has infringed the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression, right to personal liberty, right to life, right to freedom of movement and right to travel abroad.
   
• The petitioner has stated that artcles14, 19, and 21 are interconnected with each other and they should be interpreted wholly to understand the spirit of the constitution.
• Even though India does not follow the due process model of law but the procedure established by the law should be in consistent with the principles of the natural justice and it should be free from the unfair practices and any arbitrariness.
   
• The petitioner has argued that section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act violates article 21 of the constitution as it has impounded the passport of the petitioner and restraining her personal liberty and travel to abroad.
   
• The Latin phrase "Audi alteram partem", means to listen to the other side as well and provide them opportunity of being heard to the arguments of the other party and it is a component of the principles of natural justice. And stated that this chance has not been given to her. And has stated that even though the principles of the natural justice have not been mentioned under the constitution but the spirit of the fundamental rights embodies the importance of these principles.
   
• In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962, it was held that the word personal liberty is used in the constitution as a medium to include all the rights mentioned under article 19(1) related to personal liberty.[5]

Contentions of the Respondents

• The respondent has stated that the passport of the petitioner has been impounded because she has to appear before the committed for the violation of the law made under the Passports Act, 1967.
   
• The responded has stated that right to travel abroad has never been covered under article 19 of the constitution and stated that Passports Act was not made to violate the fundamental rights in any manner and held that the government should involve in the activities of the state for its actions of seizing the passport of the party.
   
• The respondents have stated that the principles of natural justice are vague and ambiguous in nature and held that the constitution should not refer to those principles. And contended that article 21 is very wide in nature as it includes the aspects of articles 14 and 19 in it and if any law found violation of this article should be termed as unconstitutional but the law made under the Passports Act is not infringing article 21.
   
• The framers of the constitution has adopted the procedure established by the law and absence of due process model of law from the provisions should reflect the minds of framers of constitution and their actions are to be protected.

Judgment
The seven judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the petitioner and in this case the court has upheld the judgment of Satwant Singh case, in which the court has opined that the right to travel to abroad falls under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court had given a new face for the constitution that is the procedure established by the law must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality. The court has overruled the judgment of A.K. Gopalan case, and held that there is interconnectedness between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and earlier in the case of A.K. Gopalan it was held that these provisions were mutually exclusive but in the present case the court has decide that these provisions are dependent on each other and any case before the courts would fall under the aspects of these articles.

The court has opined that the term personal liberty should not be interpreted in a narrower sense rather it should be interpreted in a broader sense and as a result through this judgment of the Supreme Court the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been widened. The court has observed that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, had not violated the articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Critical Analysis of the Case
In my opinion in this case when the court has overruled the judgment of A.K. Gopalan case, the scope of the fundamental rights has been expanded and the judges has criticized the contentions of the respondents that any law will be valid until it is repealed. By this judgment the court had opened the doors for the future cases by liberalizing the interpretation of article 21 of the constitution and helps in providing basic rights mentioned under Part-Ⅲ of the Indian Constitution.

And in today's world the court have been successful in interpreting different cases under the scope of article 21 such as right to freedom from pollution, right to clean air, right to livelihood, right to legal aid, right to food, and right to medical care and many other dimensions were included within article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is considered as a landmark judgment given by the Supreme Court of India as it give a new interpretation to the words right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment has also given right rights that the horizons of the fundamental rights shall not be restricted by the boundaries of the country.

This case is also referred as Golden Triangle Case as it included the articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution as these provisions are the most significant articles providing the fundamental rights to the citizens of India. The decision held by the court has stated that the procedure established by the law should be reasonable fair and just.

And the court has accepted that right to travel abroad will fall under the ambit of article 21 of the Indian Constitution and broadened its scope and the court has stated that it is duty of the authorities to interpret article 21 of the Indian Constitution in a way that serves the public interests.

End-Notes:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
2. AIR 1950 SC 27.
3. AIR 1967 SC 1836.
4. The Passports Act, 1967, s.10 (3) (c).
5. AIR 1963 SC 1295.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Boddu Harshith Sai

Authentication No: JL354748287622-30-0623