Author: Annesha Marick, Techno India University salt Lake
This case Maneka Gandhi v union of india is a case of about a women who is a journalist was going to the other country for some official work. She applied for passport under Indian passport act 1967 and her passport was issued on 1 st June 1976.
On July 1977, Maneka Gandhi received a letter from regional passport officer .
The petitioner required to surrender her passport with in 7 from the receipt of that letter .
A reply from government came stating that government decided not to furnish her a statement of copy of such order.
Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under article 32 of Indian constitution. She challenges sec 10(3)© unconstitutional because it’s a violation of fundamental right under article 14, 19 , (1)
Abstract – The Maneka Gandhi case formally known as Maneka Gandhi v union of India (1978) is a judgement of supreme court decided by the highest judicial that is the supreme court of india.
Article 21 of Indian constitution is violated here.
In 1977, an Indian citizen that is Maneka Gandhi an former, Indian citizen challenge the decision of government
And said she was not given a chance to be heard under article 19 is violated here.
The supreme courts judgement in Maneka Gandhi case guarantees the right to life and personal liberty .
The supreme court said that one cannot amend article of the Indian Constitution.
JUDGEMENT –
The court said that sec 10(3) © of passport act 1967 is considered to be void because it violates article 14 fundamental right of the Indian constitution.
The supreme court further stated that article 14 (right to equality ) , article 19 ( right to freedom) , article 21 (right to life and personal liberty ) a person has to met the criteria as specified in article 14 and article 19 of Indian constitution.
Use of legal jargon –
The Maneka Gandhi case , formally known as Maneka Gandhi v union of india case 1978, is a landmark case . The judgement of the case , decided by the supreme court if India .
This case violated article 21 of Indian constitution which guarantees right to life and personal liberty . Maneka Gandhi who was travelling to abroad and the airport authority stopped her from entering she filed a case against this to the supreme court by saying that article 21 personal life and liberty has been violated .
She also said that she was not given the chance to be heard under article 19 of Indian constitution , which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The proof :-
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v union of Indian (1978) case it includes –
Expansion of article 21- The court argued on the matter that article 21 is not a procedural right . This includes privacy , freedom to move anywhere.
A person has the right to go to any foreign country using visa and stay anywhere and again he or she may come to the same place same country whenever he or she wants . Under this article no one has the right to stop such person if such person stops or interferes others privacy or obstructs another’s way this article will be violated .
In this case article 21 is violated here .
Due process – the supreme court emphasized the importance of procedural due process when depriving a person of their life or personal liberty.
Judicial review- the case affirmed the principle of judicial review over administrative actions affecting fundamental rights of principle of natural justice and fairness.
Right to passport – specially deals with right of individual to obtain a passport and travel abroad .
Impact on legal doctrine – here the fundamental rights are not isolated but interconnected and must be interpreted fullfill to intending the purpose of safeguarding individual rights.
Conclusion
The Maneka Gandhi Judgement was a decent judgement and was considered to be the best judgement that Indian supreme court has ever given .
Article 14 article 19 and article 21 protects the right of life and fundamental right of citizens of India.
Maneka Gandhi is a prominent Indian politician known for her advocacy on animal rights and enviornmental issues .she has been involved in Indian politics
For several decades she work for animals.
Article 19 of the Indian constitution deals with the fundamental rights . The right to express one’s opinion freely without any fear
For example – oral , written , electronic broad casting , freedom of expression includes freedom of press .
Article 21 includes fundamental rights that are been violated in this case –
Protection of life and persona liberty
No person shall be denied to the life and personal liberty . Every one has their personal freedom and this article protects these fundamental rights For all individuals in India .
Maneka Gandhi is an activist for animal right and also an environmentalist .
She is also got national and international awards.
Maneka Gandhi was appointed as the chairman for the supervision and the experiment of animals . The scope of article 21 of Indian constitution provides right to life and liberty widened under the court.
The right to travel abroad includes personal liberty which shall not be violated no individual shall not be denied this right without the following procedure –
The passport act 1967does not provide any provisions .
If anyone has no passport visa can be denied to travel to abroad but in case if he has he shall not denied if anyone denies or interferes the privacy shall be liable for such act .
An important aspect Audi alteram partem signifies , that the applicant was not allowed to be heard .
FAQS
Why was the judgement Maneka Gandhi case important ?
Maneka Gandhi case is a landmark case that supports article 21 of Indian constitution right to personal liberty .
The complainant passport was seized by authority under Indian authorities act. The supreme court with seven bench judge upheld Illegal passport seizure.
What is article 16 ?
Article 16 of Indian constitution provides right to equality in matters of public employment ensuring all citizens to get equal benefit opportunity for all no discrimination.
What was the impact of Maneka Gandhi case on extra territorial application of fundamental right ?
The court acknowledge that fundamental right like article 19 are limited to citizens other like article 14 and
21 also apply to non Citizens and have an extra territorial application.
