Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 01 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Paragraph 19] is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, which dealt with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of speech and expression. The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, challenged the impounding of her passport by the Government of India, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a)(b), and 21 of the Constitution.
II. Background
On July 4, 1977, the Government of India impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport, citing the "interests of the general public" under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 [Paragraph 19]. Gandhi filed a writ petition, alleging that the impounding of her passport infringed upon her fundamental rights, including personal liberty, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and liberty [Paragraph 19].
Key Issues
The case raised several crucial issues:
• Personal Liberty and Due Process: Whether the right to go abroad is part of "personal liberty" under Article 21 and cannot be deprived without due process [Paragraph 1].
• Fundamental Rights Violations: Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and (g), and 21 [Paragraph 2].
• Freedom of Speech and Expression: Whether the impounding of the passport restricts the petitioner's right to free speech and journalism [Paragraph 3].
• Reasonableness of the Order: Whether the order to impound the passport was based on reasonable grounds or arbitrary [Paragraph 4].
• Public Interest: Whether a passport can be impounded solely on the basis of potential future public interest [Paragraph 5].
Judgments and Observations
Justice P.N. Bhagwati's Concurring Opinion
Justice Bhagwati, in his concurring opinion, made several significant observations:
• Right to Travel Internationally: The right to travel internationally is included in the right to personal liberty [Paragraph 1].
• Interrelation of Fundamental Rights: Articles 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments and should be read together, as the Constitution must be interpreted as an integral whole [Paragraph 3].
• Due Process and Natural Justice: The procedure prescribed by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and the law depriving personal liberty must comply with the principles of natural justice [Paragraph 3, Paragraph 14].
• Extraterritorial Application of Fundamental Rights: The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) is without geographical limits [Paragraph 3].
Chief Justice E.S. Venkataramiah's Concurring Opinion
Chief Justice Venkataramiah concurred with Justice Bhagwati's opinion and made the following observations:
• Opportunity to be Heard: The Central Government should give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard regarding the impounding of her passport [Paragraph 14].
• Natural Justice: The principles of natural justice must be followed to the maximum extent possible, even in administrative proceedings [Paragraph 14].
• Reasonableness of Restrictions: An order impounding a passport can be made only if it is actually in the interests of the general public, and not merely on the basis of potential future interests [Paragraph 14].
Dissenting Opinion
While the majority opinion upheld the petitioner's contentions, there was a dissenting opinion that argued against the extraterritorial application of fundamental rights [Paragraph 19]. This opinion held that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 are not applicable outside the territorial limits of India and that the impounding of a passport does not infringe upon these rights outside the country.
The Maneka Gandhi case has been widely cited and has influenced subsequent judicial decisions, shaping the interpretation and application of fundamental rights in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments