A seminal case that upholds the right to personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution is maneka gandhi vs union of india. This action was started by the authorities seizing the complainant’s passport in accordance with the Passport Act. The unconstitutional passport seizure was unanimously upheld by a seven-judge Supreme Court.
maneka gandhi vs union of india Case Facts
- In accordance with the 1967 passport act, Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner, received her passport on June 1st, 1976.
- She was given an order to turn in her passport by the Regional Passport Office in New Delhi on July 2, 1977.
- Additionally, the petitioner was not provided with a rationale for the External Affairs Ministry’s capricious and unilateral decision, which was justified by the public interest.
- Using the Supreme Court’s writ authority, the petitioner addressed the court, arguing that the State’s impoundment of her passport directly violated her Article 21 right to personal liberty.
- It is important to note that the Supreme Court ruled in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam that the freedom to travel abroad falls squarely under the purview of article 21 of the constitution, however it was not evident to what degree the Passport Act curtailed this specific freedom.
maneka gandhi vs union of india Issues
- Is there a limit to the scope of the Fundamental Rights granted to Indian people by the Constitution, and are they unconditional or conditional?
- Whether the “right to travel abroad” is covered by Article 21 protections.
- What is the relationship between the rights protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- What constitutes “procedure established by law”
- Is the clause found in passport act of 1967 Section 10(3)(c) a violation of fundamental rights, and if so, is this legislation enforceable?
- Is there a possibility that the contested Regional Passport Officer order goes against natural justice principles?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The State has violated the Petitioner’s Fundamental Rights of freedom of speech and expression, life and personal liberty, right to travel abroad, and freedom of movement by virtue of the administrative order that seized the passport on July 4, 1977.
- It is best to read the clauses included in Articles 14, 19, and 21 together because they don’t conflict with one another. Natural justice principles and the genuine spirit of constitutionalism can only be upheld by a cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation.
- Even though India may not have embraced the American definition of “due process of law,” the legal process should nevertheless be rational, fair, and not capricious.
- The passport act’s Section 10(3)(c) violates Article 21 because it infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty that this Article protects.
- The right to a hearing, or Audi Altrem Partem, is universally recognized as an essential element of the natural justice principles. The fundamental ideas of natural justice are embodied in the spirit of the Fundamental Rights, even though they are not stated explicitly in any of the Constitution’s articles.
Respondent:
- The petitioner was ordered to appear for a hearing before a government committee, according to the respondents, who claimed that their passports had been confiscated.
- The respondents argued that the definition of “law” under Article 21 could not be read in accordance with the fundamental principles of natural justice, citing the A.K. Gopalan case as support. Furthermore, one should understand personal liberty strictly.
- Another claim advanced by the respondents in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is that passing the reasonability test does not necessitate adhering to the definition of “procedure established by law” as specified in Article 21. Maybe it’s not even compliant with Articles 14 and 19.
- The American concept of “due process of law” and the British concept of “procedure established by law” have long been the subject of heated arguments. The absence of any reference to due process of law in the Constitution indicates that the framers did not intend for it to be included.
maneka gandhi vs union of india Judgment
- Despite mentioning “procedure established by law,” the court altered our understanding of the Constitution by holding that Article 21 cannot permit arbitrary or unreasonable procedures.
- The process should always be rational, equitable, and fair to all parties, according to the framers of the Constitution.
- The Gopalan case was overturned by the court, which declared that all laws must adhere to the requirements outlined in Articles 19, 14, and 21 because they are interconnected.
- The court determined that rather than having a rigorous and limited definition, “personal liberty” should be defined flexibly and liberally.
- The right to go abroad is protected by Article 21, as demonstrated by the Satwant Singh case. According to the court, administrative orders under Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) may be contested on the grounds that they are unjust, disrespectful, violate natural justice, or exceed their jurisdiction.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
