Latest News
Back
Document:
Maneka Gandhi Case 25 Jan, 1978
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
In Article 21 of Indian Constitution, the above line is stated. The meaning of ‘Personal Liberty’ is freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not authorized under law. In this article the resemblance of article 21 at the time of Maneka Gandhi case and present day. As ‘the personal liberty’ was considered by Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gopalan vs Union of India.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 25 Jan, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
In this case the meaning of word ‘personal liberty’ again came into consideration of Supreme Court as, petitioner (Maneka Gandhi’s) passport had been impounded by Central Government under section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act, 1967. In the present case, The A.K. Gopalan’s case was overruled. Bhagwati, J. observed: “The expression ‘personal liberty’ in 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 raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.” Court held that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19 with respect to their relationship between both Articles.
Passport Act, 1967, a certain individual can be impounded to his passport if there is necessary for the integrity of India, in the interest of sovereignty or friendly relations of India with foreign countries, or the general public. How The reasons of such impoundment of passport are also to be communicated with the affected party however if the impoundment is done in the interests of the general public these reasons can be withheld. In the present case, the authorities on July 4th 1977 issued a notice to Maneka Gandhi of impoundment of the passport as a reason in the interest of the general public. As soon as the Mankea Gandhi got the notice of impoundment she reverted back to the authorities seeking for specific detailed reasons that why her passport has been impounded. The authorities answered that in the interest of the general public the reasons are not to be specified. Therefore, Mrs Maneka Gandhi approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for the enforcement of Fundamental Right mentioned under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution against the arbitrary action of the authorities. Further amendments and enforcement were done in petition by Maneka Gandhi as addition of Article 21 i.e. Protection of Life & Personal Liberty, Article 19(1)(a) i.e. Right to freedom of speech, Article 19(1)(g) i.e. Right to freedom of Movement. Among the major reasons asserted for the filing of such petition, Mrs Maneka Gandhi contended that the impugned order is void as it took away the petitioner’s right to be given a fair hearing to present her defence. The procedure established by law must be fair, reasonable and just free from the sort of arbitrariness as Indian constitution has not adopted “due process of law”. Section 10(3)(c) of passport Act is violative of Article 21 of the constitution as it violates the right to life and personal liberty which is guaranteed under the said constitutional provision. By the virtue of this provision, Mrs Maneka Gandhi was restrained from travelling abroad. This restrain on Mrs Maneka Gandhi was unconstitutional since it was generally accepted that the right to travel abroad was within the right to life & personal liberty under Article 21.
Principle of Natural Justice is applied as Audi Altrem Parteme which is the essential part of it gives the opportunity to be heard which is universally recognized. There is no explicit place in constitutional provisions for these principles of Natural Justice.
Judgement:
On 25th January 1978 this landmark judgment came and changed the landscape of the Constitution of India. This judgment diversified the scope of Article 21 exponentially and this judgment truly made India a welfare state as it id promised in the Preamble of Constitution of India. A unanimous decision was given by the seven-judge bench except some judges concurring on some points. There were different opinions of the seven judges in which the majority opinion was written by Justice Bhagwati for himself, Chandrachud, Iyer& Beg (CJ), Untwalia& Fazal Ali Justice while wrote separate but concurring opinions. The court overruled Gopalan’s case by stating that every law must pass the tests of the said provisions i.e Article 14, 19 & 21, there is a unique relationship between these provisions. Earlier in Gopalan’s case, the majority held that these provisions in itself are commonly exclusive. Therefore, to correct the earlier mistake of the court, the Apex court now held that these provisions are not commonly exclusive and dependent on each other. The court held that the scope of “personal liberty” is not be interpreted in a narrow and stricter sense. The court said that personal liberty has to be understood in the liberal and broader sense. The court compelled the future courts to expand the horizons of Article 21 to cover all the Fundamental Rights and avoid interpreting it in narrower sense. Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act 1967 is not violative of neither Article 21 nor Article 19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g). The court further held that the said 1967, Passport Act provisions also not in contradiction of Article 14. However, the said provision provides for an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the contention of Mrs Maneka Gandhi that the phrase “in the interests of the general public” is not vague. The court held that Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) is an administrative order, therefore, open to challenge on the grounds of denial of natural justice, malafide, unreasonable and ultra vires. The rights discussed under 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) are extended to the territorial limits of India.
Conclusion
The Maneka Gandhi judgment was a triumph to the Indian Judiciary and it is one of the greatest judgment ever given by the Supreme Court of India. This judgment’s basically interlinked and established the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21. With the virtue of this link, the court made these provisions inseparable and a single entity. Now any valid procedure has to have to meet all the requirements mentioned under Article 14, 19 & 21. Therefore, it expanded the scope of personal liberty rapidly and protected the fundamental and constitutional right to life to a great extent. The judgment made indubitable actions of Executive and as it saved the citizens from the holiness of Parliamentary law when it did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) & 10(5) of 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The authorities were reminded by the courts to rarely use the prerogative of section 10(5) so as to acknowledge that their actions were well thought as well as rationals. The judgment’s importance can be seen today also because the way in which the bench construed Article 21 and expanded its horizons has given way for the resolving of problems left unsolved by the Parliament. It’s quite obvious that this judgment has played an imperative role in interpreting Right to Clean Air, Right to Clean Water, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment Speedy Trial, Legal Aid, Right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Standard Education, Fair Trial, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, etc., as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty mentioned under Article 21.
Document:
