Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

FACTS

Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the Central Government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, which allows the passport authority to impound a passport if necessary in the interest of the sovereignty, security of the nation, and the general public. She filed a writ petition on the ground of violation of her fundamental rights under Article 21. The leading opinion was pronounced by Justice Bhagwati.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected:

1. Whether the Right to Travel abroad was protected under Article 21.

2. Whether there existed a connection between the Articles 14, 19, and 21.

3. What was the scope of the phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The court considered this a landmark case of the post-Emergency period, showing liberal tendencies in interpreting Fundamental Rights. The judgment overruled the earlier view in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.

• Interlinkage of Articles 14, 19, and 21 (The Golden Triangle):

  • This Hon'ble Court reiterated the proposition that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. A nexus has been established between these three Articles.

  • A law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty (under Article 21) has to meet the requirements of Article 19 and must also answer the requirement of Article 14 (non-arbitrariness).

• Expansive Interpretation of Personal Liberty:

  • The court observed that personal liberty in Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation. The expression is of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man, including the Right to Travel Abroad.

• "Procedure Established by Law" Re-interpreted:

  • The most significant aspect of the current case was the re-interpretation of the expression "procedure established by law" used in Article 21.

  • Article 21 no longer meant that a law could prescribe some semblance of procedure, however arbitrary or fanciful (the Gopalan view).

  • It now meant that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being fair, just, and reasonable. The procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. This effectively injected the American concept of 'procedural due process' into Article 21.

• Application to the Case:

  • Since the right to travel abroad falls under Article 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding a passport under the Passport Act.

  • Although the Passport Act does not expressly provide for the requirement of hearing before a passport is impounded, the Court held that the same has to be implied therein. Hence, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to a procedure that is fair and just.

{pg 1159, 1160, 1161, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain} {pg 61, 205, Constitution of India by VN Shukla}