The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India is a landmark case in India. It focuses on the fundamental rights of citizens. Most importantly, it discusses the right to travel abroad. This case helped define the interpretation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Continue reading to learn more about Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case.
Background of the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi applied for a passport under the Passport Act of 1967. The Regional Passport Officer sent her a notice on July 2, 1977. This notice instructed her to surrender her passport. Moreover, the government of India claimed that the action was in the interest of the public. She was given no satisfactory answers when she asked for reasons. She appealed to the Supreme Court of India after feeling aggrieved. Furthermore, she appealed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Also read : Top 10 Consumer Court Cases in India: Landmark Judgments
Legal Issues
The case raised several integral questions. The first discussed whether Articles 14, 19 and 21 are linked or separate. The second discussed the testing procedure for reasonableness. This indicates whether the procedure established by law is reasonable. Next, it focused on the right to travel abroad. It questioned whether the right to travel is part of Article 21. Moreover, it questioned the scope of “procedure defined by law”. It questioned the implication of this term.
It also questioned the reasonableness of legislative law. This meant that a law that limits the rights of individuals could not be considered reasonable. Also, it examined the natural justice principles. This questioned the order from the Regional Passport Officer. It examined whether this violates the principles of justice. Finally, it examined the validity of Section 10(3) of the Passport Act. It critically examined whether this provision is valid.
Arguments of the Petitioner
There were certain arguments presented by the petitioner. The first included the derivative of personal liberty. Maneka argued that the right to travel abroad is linked to personal liberty. She maintained that no citizen should lose this right without a lawful procedure. Moreover, she claimed that there was a violation of Article 21. This meant she was denied the opportunity to be heard under the Article.
Most importantly, she argued that Articles 14, 19, and 21 should be read together. This would ensure a more thorough understanding of the rights. Furthermore, she questioned the meaning of reasonable restrictions. Under this, she made the following observations. She noted that the restrictions under Article 19 were insufficient to justify the government’s actions. Finally, she argued that the government effectively detained her. This was done by impounding her passport without due process.
Arguments of the Respondents
The respondents also shared their respective arguments. Firstly, they argued that the right to travel is not included in Article 19. This implies that they did not have to justify their actions under this Article. Moreover, they stressed upon national security and public good. The government claimed that they were not responsible for disclosing the reasons for impounding her passport. They insisted that public safety was a priority.
Alongside, they suggested an inquiry committee. This meant that she could investigate the reasons through an inquiry committee. Also, the government argued that the principles of natural justice are vague. Hence, they should not form part of constitutional provisions. Finally, they asserted that a law can be challenged under Article 21 with the following cases. It directly violates Articles 14 and 19. They stated that the Passport Act does not include this.
Also read : Vijay Kant Thakur vs. The State of Bihar: Legal Case Breakdown
Legal Framework
The following articles were covered in this case.
-
Passport Act, 1967
This Act ensures the issuance and cancellation of passports in India. Moreover, Section 10 allows authorities to impound passports under certain conditions.
-
Constitution of India
Three Articles were covered under this. The first included Article 14. This ensures equality before the law. Also, ensures equal protection of the law. The second included Article 19. This guarantees the right to freedom and speech. The third included Article 21. It protects the right to life and personal liberty. Moreover, it states that no person can be deprived of life or liberty except through a legal procedure.
-
Principles of Natural Justice
These principles ensure fairness in legal proceedings. The rule “Audi Alteram Partem” implies that both sides should be heard before any decisions are made.
Supreme Court Judgement on Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court’s ruling was historic. It struck down Section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act. The court declared it unconstitutional for several reasons. The first was vague authority. Here, the law gave undefined powers to the authority. This lack of clarity violated Article 14. Secondly, it cleared the lack of a hearing opportunity. The government did not allow Menaka to present her side. This violated the principles of natural justice.
Furthermore, it stressed on the unreasonable procedure. The procedure used to impound her passport did not meet the requirements of Article 21. Moreover, it did not adhere to the essence of “procedure established by law”. Finally, there was no formal decision on the passport. They found the law unconstitutional. However, the Court decided that her passport would remain with the authorities. This is until they deem it fit.
Also read: Apoorva Arora vs State (Govt. of NTC of Delhi): Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
Conclusion
The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case is surely a landmark judgment. It broadened the interpretation of “life and personal liberty”. This is elucidated under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling also cleared the implications of Articles 14 and 19. Moreover, it asserted that citizens must exercise these rights in the correct manner. It allowed citizens to express their concerns. Also, it provided them with the opportunity to be heard.