Case analysis

 This case analysis attempts to analyse the judgement of the Supreme Court in the historical decision of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 which expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and changed the face of Indian polity and law.

'Personal Liberty' means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not authorised by law. This article is about Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India[1] , which is famously known as Maneka Gandhi's case or Personal liberty case. This case is not only a landmark case for the interpretation of Article 21 of Constitution of India but it also gave an entirely new point of look to the Chapter III of the Constitution of India.

Introduction

Prior to this case decision, Article 21 guaranteed the Right to Life and Personal Liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from the legislative action. This case just turned up pages and extended the protection against legislative actions.

This case is regarded as one of the best judgements delivered by the apex court as it was instrumental in restoring people's faith in the judiciary and constitutional values. It was in this case that the "Golden triangle" rule was firmly established by the SC and the court firmly cemented its seat as the watchdog of democracy.

This decision which was delivered by a 7-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25th January 1978, this decision, marked the development of a new era with respect to the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This decision altered the very face of the Indian Constitution and marked a new era of development in the concept of personal liberty. The decision stands as a beacon-light adding new dimensions to the interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Facts Of The Case

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.

 

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that the State's act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam[2] held that right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.

 

The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest of the general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution alleging that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.

Judgement Of The Court

The court said that section 10(3)(c) of passport act, 1967 is void because it violates Article 14 of Indian constitution because it confers vague and undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it doesn't provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word "procedure" as mentioned in the clause, and the present procedure performed 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 the authorities till they deem fit.

 

This immensely important judgement was delivered on 25th January 1978 and it altered the landscape of the Indian Constitution. This judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realized the goal of making India a welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench. Before the enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle abroad. Also, the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing the passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.