MANEKA GANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597 ) was one of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court which expanded scope of  Article 21 and considered inter-relationship between Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21.  This judgment was delivered by seven judge bench.  Justice Bhagwati delivered judgment for himself and Justice Untwalla and Justice Fazal Ali. Justice Beg, Justice Chandradud and Justice krishna Iyer wrote concurring judgments. Justice Kailasam wrote dissenting Judgment. This article summarises judgment delivered by Justice Bhagwati.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Smt. Maneka Gandhi was holder of passport issued under Passport Act, 1967. She received a letter dated 2^nd July, 1977 from Regional Passport Officer informing her that her passport has been impounded under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act in public interest. Smt. Maneka Gandhi requested for statement of reasons for making order  for impounding of the passport. The Ministry of External Affairs informed her that it has decided not to furnish a statement of reasons “in interest of the general public”.

Smt. Maneka Gandhi challenged the order before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

Interpretation of Personal Liberty

One of the ground raised in the Petition was that right to go abroad is part of “personal liberty”  enumerated under Article 21 and no body can be deprived of this right except procedure established by law. It was contended that there was no procedure provided under the Passport Act and if there was any such procedure was unreasonable and arbitrary as it does not provide opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court noted that  a narrow interpretation of “personal liberty” has been done in A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (1950 SCR 88) so as to confine the protection of Article 21 to freedom against unlawful detention. In  Kharak Singh Vs. State of UP (1964 ) 1 SCR 332 the majority opinion  took the view that “personal liberty” in Article 21 is a compendious term which includes verities of rights other than those dealt in various clauses of Article 19. While Article 19 deals with particular species or attributes, Article 21 deals with the residual rights. The minority opinion held that both are independent rights but there are overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out by another.  The Supreme Court noted that the majority opinion held in Kharak Singh has been overruled by R. C. Cooper Vs. Union of India (1973) 3 SCR 530 wherein it was held that Fundamental Rights granted under Part III are not distinct and mutually exclusive.

The Supreme Court observed that the attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of fundamental rights. The Court held that the expression “personal liberty” is Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.  The Supreme Court noted that in Satwant Singh Sahney  vs D Ramarathnam (1967 3 SCR 525 ) right to go abroad has been held to be right covered under Article 21.

The Passports Act, 1967 provides for procedure for issuance, refusal, cancellation and impounding of passport but issue is whether such procedure is sufficient compliance with Article 21 . Any such procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

Inter-relationship between Article 14, 19 and Article 21

The Supreme Court observed that in light of R. C. Cooper Vs. Union of India (1973)  3 SCR 530 , Shambhu Nath Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal 1973 1 SCR 856  and Haradhan Saha Vs State of West Bengal  1975 1 SCR 778, if a law depriving a person of “personal liberty” and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19  and Article 14. The Court also discussed scope of Article 14. The Court held that procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be in conformity with Article 14. Such procedure must be right, just and fair.

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the best of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Natural Justice and Procedure Established by Law

The Court noted that there are two main principles of Natural Justice – Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and audo alteram partem. Natural justice is a great humanizing principle ensuring fairness and has become pervasive in administrative actions. The court held that principle of natural justice is applicable to both quasi-judicial bodies and administrative bodies.

The Supreme Court observed that audi alteram rule is sufficiently flexible to permit modifications and variations to suit exigencies of myriad kinds of situations. It may be full- fledged hearing or minimal hearing. It may be a hearing prior to the decision or a post decisional remedial hearing. A fair opportunity of being heard upon the order impounding the passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice.

The Court noted that in instant case no such opportunity has been given to Smt Maneka Gandhi as such procedure adopted was in violation of the Article 21.

 Direct and Inevitable Effect Test

The Court also deliberated over the nature of test for determining constitutionality of a statute on the touchstone of fundamental rights. The Court noted that in A K Gopalan the test developed was of directness of legislation and not what will be the result of statute, otherwise valid. The Court was of the view that direct object of order was preventive detention and not the infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression, which was only consequential effect. In R. C. Cooper case the test of “direct consequence and effect” of state action on fundamental rights was propounded.

The Court held that right of freedom of speech and expression is available not only within the territory of India but also outside. The Court held that right to go abroad is not covered under Right to speech and expression under 19 (1) (a) as such provisions of Passport Act imposing restrictions are not violative of Article 19 1 (a) or (g).

_____________________________________________________