The Supreme Court of India's landmark decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India
, commonly referred to as the Maneka Gandhi case, marked a
significant turning point in the court's approach to interpreting and
safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
pivotal judgment, delivered in 1978, came at a crucial juncture in India's legal
and political history i.e. during the period of extreme political turmoil known
as the national Emergency, declared by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in 1975.
During this Emergency, there were severe restrictions on civil liberties,
including strict censorship of the media and the detention of political
prisoners without clear legal recourse.
The legal context was further complicated by a prior Supreme Court decision in
the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case in 1976. In the ADM Jabalpur case, the
Supreme Court had controversially ruled that individuals detained during the
Emergency could not file habeas corpus petitions to challenge the legality of
their detention. This decision had eroded public confidence in the judiciary, as
it appeared that the courts were unwilling to protect citizens' fundamental
rights during a crisis.
Adding to this disillusionment, the government, led by
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, had introduced a series of constitutional
amendments that significantly curtailed individual fundamental rights. This
atmosphere of political and legal upheaval left many citizens feeling let down
by their elected representatives and abandoned by the highest court in the land.
In this backdrop, the Supreme Court, through its judgment in the Maneka Gandhi
case, aimed to restore faith in the judiciary and reassert the importance of
safeguarding individual rights. The court went beyond its immediate mandate to
make several remarkable assertions that would become the foundation for the
protection of human rights for ordinary citizens in the years to come.
Facts Of The Case
This passage discusses the background of the Maneka Gandhi case, which happened
after the national Emergency in India ended in 1977 and the Janata Party came
into power. Maneka Gandhi, who was related to the former Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi and ran a political magazine called Surya, had been issued a passport in
1976 under the Passports Act.
After the Congress Party was no longer in power
and the Janata Party took over, Maneka Gandhi used her magazine, Surya, to
criticize the new government and try to improve the image of the Congress Party.
She published a controversial article with photographs showing the son of the
defense minister involved in a sexual encounter with a student from Delhi
In 1977, when Maneka Gandhi wanted to leave India for a speaking engagement, she
received a letter from the Government of India stating that they were impounding
her passport "in public interest" under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.
When she asked for the reasons behind this decision, the government refused to
provide any, stating that it wasn't in the interest of the general public to
disclose the reasons. In response, Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court to challenge the government's decision to impound her passport and
their refusal to explain why they did it.
Contentions Of The Parties
- Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution of India?
- Whether 'Right to Travel Abroad' is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.
- What is the Connection between the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Determining the scope of "Procedure established by Law"
- Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 is violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is whether such legislation is a concrete Law?
- Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of natural justice?
- Petitioner's Contention
Right to Go Abroad and Procedure Established by Law: The argument here is that
the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The Passports Act does not specify any procedure for impounding a
passport, and even if a procedure is implied, it is argued to be unjust and
arbitrary because it does not provide the passport holder with an opportunity to
be heard (Audi altrem partem). Article 32 of the Constitution is cited as a
basis for the right to be heard.
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act is
challenged on the grounds that it violates several fundamental rights, including
Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and
expression), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession), and Article
21 (right to life and personal liberty). The argument is that these articles
must be read together and in synchronization, and any law or provision that
contradicts or restricts these rights should be considered null and void.
Conflict with Natural Justice: It is claimed that the impugned order, which
impounds the passport, is in conflict with the principles of natural justice.
This is because it places an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech
and expression and the freedom to carry out one's profession, both of which are
protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), respectively.
Requirement of Present Existence of Public Interest: The argument is made that
for a passport to be impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act,
there must be an existing and real public interest at the time of the decision,
not merely a future likelihood or possibility.
Violation Based on Mere Information: It is contended that the impugned order was
passed by the Central Government based on mere information that the petitioner
might likely be required to appear before a Commission of Inquiry.
- Respondent's Contention
The contention here is that the impoundment of the petitioner's passport was
carried out because her appearance was necessary before the Commission of
This argument acknowledges the precedent set by the A.K. Gopalan case and
asserts that the term 'law' in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not
required to adhere to the principles of natural justice, which are seen as vague
The argument is that the term 'procedure established by law' in Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution does not need to meet the criteria of reasonability or
align with the principles of Articles 14 and 19. It asserts that this specific
term was intentionally selected in contrast to the American concept of 'due
process of law,' and as such, it should be upheld and followed as it stands.
The right to travel abroad is not covered under any of the clauses of Article
19(1) and hence Article 19 is independent of proving the reasonableness of the
Important Cases Involved Maneka Gandhi Case
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras:
In 1950, there was a case where A.K. Gopalan,
a social and political worker, was detained under a law called the Preventive
Detention Act. He argued that this detention was illegal and violated several
fundamental rights in the Constitution. He believed that these rights should be
considered together as a whole. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the
fundamental rights dealt with distinct matters and should be considered in
What this implied was that when a law meets the requirements of the
fundamental right applying to it, it cannot be said that the law is against any
other fundamental right. In this case, the court also said that since Article 22
(which deals with safeguards against preventive detention) was followed, Gopalan
couldn't challenge his detention under Article 21 (the right to life and
This decision was seen as "positivist," meaning the court relied on what the
Constitution originally meant and the history behind it. It gave a lot of
importance to the law made by the government. Some people think this decision
was influenced by the pressures on the Supreme Court at that time, as the
Constitution was very new, and the judges might not have wanted to change what
the Constituent Assembly had decided.
Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India:
This case was
about a person named Satwant Singh who had a business that required him to
travel abroad often. The government asked him to surrender his passports because
they thought he might leave India to avoid a trial. He went to the Supreme
Court, arguing that this violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and
The Supreme Court said that the word "liberty" in Article 21 is broad and only
limited by what is protected under Article 19. It means that your right to life
and personal liberty can only be taken away through a legal process. However, in
this case, the government's order for Singh to surrender his passports was
canceled by the court, not because of the law itself, but because there were no
clear rules for taking away passports at that time. After this case, the
Parliament made a new law in 1967 called the Passports Act to regulate how
passports would be issued and taken away.
In simple terms, these cases were about how the Supreme Court interpreted the
Constitution's fundamental rights. In the first case (Gopalan), they were strict
and looked at each right separately. In the second case (Satwant Singh), they
said that the right to personal liberty is broad but can only be taken away
through proper legal procedures, and they canceled the government's action
because there were no clear rules at the time.
Before delving into the Supreme Court's decision in the Maneka Gandhi case,
crucial to understand that the Supreme Court's earlier rigid approach, as seen
in the Gopalan case, had been softened by two pre-Emergency era cases [Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P., R.C. Cooper v. Union of India
]. These cases were
extensively referenced in the Maneka Gandhi judgment.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court transformed itself from being a mere
supervisor of constitutional matters to becoming a watchdog of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court moved away from the strict interpretation of fundamental
rights established in Gopalan. The Court emphasized that the various fundamental
rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution are not isolated and separate
from each other. Instead, they form an interconnected system within the
Constitution. The Court argued that isolating different aspects of human freedom
for the sake of protection is neither practical nor beneficial.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed the need to interpret Part III of the
Constitution holistically. It stated that merely meeting the requirements of one
fundamental right does not exempt a law from the scrutiny of other fundamental
rights. In other words, even if a law appears to align with a particular
fundamental right and fulfills its criteria, it must also adhere to the
requirements of other fundamental rights.
The majority opinion, delivered by a seven-judge bench, asserted that any
procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and
reasonable. It cannot be arbitrary or oppressive. Applying this standard, the
government's decision to impound Maneka Gandhi's passport, done without offering
her a hearing or providing reasons, failed to meet the standards set by Article
21. The Court upheld the importance of the right to travel abroad as an integral
part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Additionally, it found
the government's order arbitrary and in violation of the right to equality as
per Article 14.
Despite these strong observations, the Court did not issue a formal order in the
case. Instead, it accepted the government's assurance that Maneka Gandhi would
have an opportunity to be heard. The majority upheld the impounding of her
passport, stating that it should remain in the court's custody temporarily.
However, Justice Beg, while being part of the majority, expressed the view that
the government's order was neither fair nor procedurally proper and should be
quashed by the court.
The significance of the Maneka Gandhi case goes beyond just allowing a member of
a powerful political family to travel abroad. It marked a turning point in how
the Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is
about the right to life and personal liberty. Before this case, the court had a
strict and narrow approach to this right, but after Maneka Gandhi, they took a
more purposeful and broad view.
What's most important is that the court introduced the concept of "substantive
due process," which means that courts could now consider a wide range of
unenumerated rights under Article 21. These rights cover various areas, such as
prisoners' rights, protection for women and children, and environmental rights.
Since the Maneka Gandhi case, the courts have included many rights within the
scope of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Rights of prisoners, like protection from unnecessary handcuffing, access to
transcripts of judgments, and the right to appeal properly.
- Environmental rights, such as the right to a healthy environment and protection
from pollution hazards.
- Other rights, like the right to live with human dignity, access to education,
the right to earn a livelihood, and protection of workers' health and maternity
So, Maneka Gandhi's case
set a precedent for a broader and more inclusive
interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under the Indian
Constitution, which has had far-reaching implications for human rights in India.
The Maneka Gandhi case
is often regarded as the beginning of a new era in Indian
human rights jurisprudence. It transformed the Supreme Court into a powerful
protector of human rights, acting as an "institutional ombudsman of human
rights." This decision set a precedent for broader interpretations of
constitutional rights and established the judiciary as a crucial defender of
individual liberties, even in challenging political circumstances.
In essence, the Maneka Gandhi case serves as a symbol of the judiciary's
commitment to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the protection
of fundamental rights, especially during times of political turbulence and
uncertainty in India.
- Zia Mody, 10 Judgements That Changed India (Penguin India 2013).
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
- R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318.
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
- Constitution of India, 1950.
- Akella Poornima, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.