This Case Commentary is written by Rehan Vaz, a Fourth-year law student of St. Rocks Law College (Mumbai)

Citations

Court: Supreme Court of India

Full Case Name: Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India

Decided: 1978

Citations ( Case Study): 1978 2 S.C.R. 621,1978, INSC 16; AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248.

JUDGES: M H. Beg (Chief Justice), V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N L Untwalia. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S Kaliasam

Decision By: P.N Bhagwati (for himself, N L Unitwallia, and S.M. Fazal Ali )

Concurrence: M.H Beg (Chief Justice), Y V. Chandrachud, V.R .krishna Iyer

Dissent: Palapatti Sadaya Goundar Kailiasam.

Introduction

This case Maneka Gandhi v. Union Bank of India is about a woman who is a journalist who was about to go to another country for some official work. So, she applied for the Passport under the India Passport Act 1967, and her passport was issued on 1 June 1976. On the 4th of June 1977, Maneka Gandhi received a letter from the regional passport officer imitating her that it was decided by the government of India to impound her passport under sec, 10(3)(c) of the acts in public interest. The petition was required to surrender her passport within 7days of the receipt of that letter. Maneka Gandhi immediately addressed a letter to the regional passport officer requesting a copy of a statement about the reason for making the order as provided in sec (10) (5). A reply was sent by the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs on 6th July 1977 stating that the government decided in the interest of the general public not to furnish her a copy of the statement of the reason for making the order.

Maneka Gandhi now filed a written petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India challenging the action of the government in impounding her passport and declining to give a reason for doing so. She challenges sec 10(3)(c) unconstitutional because it’s a violence of fundamental rights under the act. 14,19(1)

Background

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded ‘in the public interest’ by an order dated 2Nd July 1977. When reasons for impounding her passport were sought, the Government of India declined to prove any “In the Interest of the General Public.”

Gandhi filed a writ petition Under Article 32 of the constitution of India, challenging the order because it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution. The Union responded in their written submissions that her passport was impounded because presence was likely to be required in connection with legal proceedings before a ‘commission of injury.’

Fact and Brief

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was granted on 1, 1976, under the Passport Act 1967. On July 2, 1977, the Regional Office In New Delhi requested that she surrender her passport. The petitioner also provided no rationale for the External Affairs Ministry’s arbitrary and unilateral action, citing public interest. The Petitioner filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court, claiming that the state’s impoundment of her passport violated her right to personal liberty as granted by Article 21. In Satwant Singh Sawhney V. Ranaratham, the Supreme Court found that the freedom to travel abroad is clearly Within the scope of Article 21, albeit the degree to which the Passport Act dismissed the specific right was unclear.

Issue Concerning Court

· Are the requirements of Articles 21, 14, and 19 related to one another or mutually exclusive?

· Should the law-enforced method which in this case, was the Passport Act 1967, be tested for reasonableness

· Is it true that Article 21 includes the right to go outside the country?

· Is it fair to pass legislation that revokes the rights of life

Petitioner Arguments

· The Right to Travel Abroad is derived of the Right to Personal Liberty ensuring that no invalid can be denied that right without following the proper legal procedure

· However, the Passport Act of 1967 does not provide any provision for seizing, revoking, or impounding a passport, making such actions arbitrary and unreasonable.

· Furthermore, the Central Government violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by failing to offer the application a chance to present its case. It is essential to clarify the true meaning of Article 21, including its nature and protective measures.

· Any Judicial proceedings must adhere to the principle of natural justice, ensuring fairness and avoiding arbitrary actions.

· The interpretation of Fundamental Rights should along with the intentions of the Constitute Assembly upload the essence of our constitution. In this case, Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution should be ready together.

· An important aspect of justice and fairness is Audi Alteram Partem which signifies that the application was not allowed to be heard.

Respondents Contention

· According to the Attorney General of India, the Right to Travel Abroad was never protected by any terms of Article (19)(1). Consequences, establishing the rationally of the Central Government’s behaviour has no bearing on Article 19.

· The respondent contended that the team law as employed in Article 21, cannot be defined given nature justice's basic standards, reiterating the premises outlined in A.K. Gopalan.

· Furthermore, these ideas of nature justice are hazy and imprecise. As a result, such ambiguous and imprecise sections in the Constitution should be Avoided

Maneka Gandhi Case Judgement by Court

The court said that section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is avoided. It violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution because it confessed vague and undefined power to the passport authority. It is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it does not affirm the world procedure as mentioned in the clause, and the present procedure performance was the worst possible one. The Court, however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter and ruled that the passport would remain with authorities till they deem fit.

Conclusion

The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new and highly varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘life and personal liberty ‘ Under Article 21, Of the Constitution. Also, it expands the horizons of freedom of speech and expression to the effect that the right is no longer restricted by the territorial boundaries of the country. It extends to almost the entire world. Thus, The case saw a high degree of judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of expanding horizons of fundamental rights in general, and Artifle21 in particular. This case is called a golden triangle case where Articles, 14,19 and 21 were challenged together and it was appreciated by the apex court.

Justice P.N Bhagwati delivered a judgment for a plurality of the Court writing for himself and Justices Untwalia and Fazal Ali Chief Justice Beg, Justice Chandrachud, and Justice Krishna Iyer wrote separate judgments concurring with the plurality.

Justice Kailiasam wrote a dissenting option. The Court did not pass an order on the specific matter of Maneka Gandhi’s passport, writing that given the statement made by the Attorney General that the government is agreeable to consider a representation that may be made by the petition in the respect of impounding of her passport it is not necessary to formally interfere with the impugned order.

Reference

· Singh Mahendra Pal (2019). V.N . Shukla’s Constitution of India (13the.d). Eastern Book Company. ISBN 9789388833313.

· Bhartia, Gautam (9 September 2017) The Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy Judgement _× Conclusion: The Proof of the Pudding Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. Retrieved 18 May 2021.

· Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1 SSC 248 ( Supreme Court of India (1978)