NEW DIMENSION OVER ARTICLE 21 (AFTER MANEKA GANDHI CASE)

S. Sadhvika, Student, Government Law College,Tiruchirapalli
  1. ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE:

           According to Article 21 of Indian constitution, which states that, “ No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”  The right guaranteed in Art. 21 is available to ‘citizens’ as well as ‘non-citizens’. The Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, is a landmark judgement in regarding to Art .21 for enlarging the scope of term “life or personal liberty” . Prior to 1978, the scope of life or personal liberty is narrower in sense. Supreme Court has interpreted widely to the term ‘life or personal liberty’ in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI case.

  1. CASE DETAILS:
CAUSE TITLE / CASE NAMEMANEKA GANDHI V. UOI.
CASE NUMBERAIR 1978 SC 597.
JUDGEMENT DATE25 JANUARY, 1978
COURTSUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CONSTITUTION OF BENCHDIVISION BENCH
NAME OF JUDGESM. HAMEEDU AH BEG, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD.
CITATIONAIR 1978 SC 597
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVEDART 14, 19, 21
  1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT: 

          Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s case decision, Art.21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty to citizens only in the arbitrary sense of actions of executives, whereas it did not include the actions of the Legislative. But after 1978, Maneka Gandhi case, the word “ life and personal liberty” was widely interpreted that is inclusive of actions of Legislative. And that laid down two conditions which are compiled to deprive a person’s life and liberty, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law, provided that the procedures shall be Just, Fair and reasonable.

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE:
  1. The Maneka Gandhi case had its procedural background from the case “Satwant Singh v. Assistant passport officer, New Delhi”, In this case the “The Supreme Court held that right to travel abroad is part of the person’s personal liberty, within the meaning of Art. 21 and therefore, no person can be deprived of his right to travel abroad except according to the procedures established by law”. Later, the SC in the case of Maneka Gandhi, has given the widest possible interpretation for  the term ‘procedures established by law’. 
  2. The Factual background of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, the passport of petitioner was impounded by the Central Government under section 10(3)(c), where by the act authorised the Government to do so if it was necessary “in the interest of the general public”. 
  3. Maneka Gandhi requested Regional passport officer for the copy of reasons for the act of passport impoundment. On 6th of July 1977, the Union Government Ministry of Affairs responded that the passport was impounded “in the interest of the general public” and declined to release the copy of grounds for impoundment.
  4. As a result of the act of Union Government, Maneka Gandhi filed a petition in the SC stating that section 10 (3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 and act of Union Government is violative of Art. 14,19 (1) (a) and (g) , 21 of the constitution.
  1. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:
    1. Whether section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act, 1967 is violative of Art. 14, 19 (1) (a) and (g) , 21 of the constitution?
    2. Whether the right to travel abroad is interpreted as  ‘personal liberty’? 
    3. Whether the act of the regional passport officer is violative of the principle of natural justice?
  2. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: The counsels for petitioner submitted and challenged the validity of the said order on the following grounds that-
  1. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act,1967, was violative of Art. 14 (Audi Alteram Partem) and principle of natural justice as they did not provide for an opportunity of being heard, before the passport was impounded.
  2. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act,1967, was violative of Art. 21, since it did not prescribe the term  ‘procedure’ as per the requirements of Art. 21. 
  3. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act,1967, was violative of Art. 19(1)(a) and (g), since it permitted imposition of restriction not within the ambit of clause (2) Or (6) of Art. 19.
  4. The petitioners also made an argument stating that ‘right to travel’ is a derivation of ‘right to personal life and liberty’ and no citizens shall be denied as it is a fundamental right.

7. RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

  1. The counsels for respondent submitted that the Passport Act, was not enacted with the intention of destroying the fundamental rights in any way. Furthermore, they stated that the government should not be forced to explain why it is detaining or impounding someone’s passport for the public interest and national security. As a result it is not violative for the act of impoundment under Art. 19.
  2. The counsel of respondent also held that ‘right to personal life and liberty’ shall not be interpreted widely which is inclusive of ‘right to travel’. And also stated that with  reference to A.K. Gopalan case, that the term ‘law’ as used in Art. 21 cannot be understood in the light of essential norms of natural justice.

8. Judgement

  1. RATIO DECIDENDI: 
  1. The SC held that the ‘Government did not justify accurately the reasons for impounding the passport of petitioner’. The power conferred to the authority under the passport act was quasi- judicial in nature. The rules of natural justice is applicable to this power. Where, natural justice follows the opportunity to be heard, that was obviously denied by the authority(Audi Alteram Partem) . 
  2.  The SC held that ‘prescribed procedure shall not be arbitrary or unreasonable in nature. The court laid down great stress on the procedural safeguards. The procedure must satisfy the requirements of natural justice, that is, just, fair and reasonable’. 
  3. Hence, any procedure that forbids  any individual from travelling abroad without any reasonable opportunity to be heard is condemnable as unfair and unjust.

      2. OVERRULING JUDGMENTS:  

  1. In Maneka Gandhi’s case the Supreme Court overruled A. K . Gopalan’s case and held that “The mere prescription of some kind of procedure is not enough to comply with the mandate of Art. 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary; it would not be a procedure to be fair or just must embody the principles of natural justice. “ Law should be reasonable law, and not enacted piece of law”.

9. Conclusion and Comments

  1. To conclude, the Maneka Gandhi case overruled the A.K. Gopalan case, the procedure established is not merely a kind of prescription by law but it has to be fair, just and reasonable not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary; and the procedures shall satisfy the principle of natural justice. 
  2. The scope of the term ‘Procedure established by law’ is widened which paved the way for the SC to make decisions related to the right to clean water, clean air, freedom from noise pollution, speedy trial, fair trial, right to livelihood, legal aid, right to food, right to clean environment, right to medical care and other important rights to be included in the scope of Art. 21.
Scroll to Top