Latest News
Back
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India: Case Analysis
The approach of the Supreme Court of India before the Maneka Gandhi case of 1978 was different than it has been since then. The Supreme Court of India’s role changed after this case and there was the emergence of the Apex Court as a savior of the people. The faith of the people in democracy was rebuilt after this case.
The facts of the case go like this, the passport of the petitioner was impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 which states that “The Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document. If the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with the foreign country or in the interests of the general public”. No statement of reasons was given as to why her passport was impounded. Earlier, the Supreme Court of India had held in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney that the right to go abroad was a part of “personal liberty” under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was thus pleaded by the petitioner that the Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 was an arbitrary provision and did not mention any details with regard to the procedure of impounding a passport and thus it should be struck down.
As per the rule of the natural law, no one should go unheard (audi alteram partem) and in this case, the petitioner’s passport was impounded without being her and thus there was a contravention of the principle of natural justice which should never be done away with. It was thus argued by the petitioner that her rights under Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 were violated due to the impounding under the Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1976.
The judgement that was delivered in this case was correctly balanced one and given with taking in view all the aspects of the issue. This case overruled the doctrine of separability as propounded in the case of AK Gopalan vs. the State of Madras and held Article 19 and 21 had different paths to follow and created watertight compartments between these rights. It was the interpretation in this case that Article 21 should be comprehensively interpreted and that the procedural and substantive laws must be read in the light of Article 21.
In this landmark judgment one important pointed out and the light was shed on was the triangle of the three fundamental rights created by the Article 14, 19 and 21and it was held that Constitution must be studied as a whole and not in parts which disconnected from each other and thus the harmonious working of all these articles must take place and they must be applied in such a way that the due process of law gets carried out.
Another important point that was highlighted was “procedure established by law” as covered under Article 21 of the Constitution. Earlier in the case of AK Gopalan vs. the State of Madras it was held that the “procedure established by law” and the American “due process of law” are different from each other but the Apex Court, in this case, overruled the earlier decision and held that the American concept of the due process and Indian procedure established by law are similar to each other in the meaning. Court held that laws that are fanciful and arbitrary in nature are not laws in the true sense of the term and all laws must be fair, just, and reasonable.
The judgment, in this case, symbolized a shift in the approach of the judiciary in handling the cases and there was a shift to the normative approach from a positivist one as the normative approach focused more on going behind the rationale of a particular law instead of following it as it is considering it as the command of the sovereign.
The judiciary by the judgment, in this case, established itself as separate from the whims and fancies that go behind the legislative enactments and established the tests for the laws passed by the legislature and they had to be reasonable, just, and should not be arbitrary. Thus this case helped to reinstate the rights of the citizens in India.
