Author: Zoya Alam, Alliance University, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
The Landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. The case of Union of India (1978) transformed the Indian constitutional jurisprudence with the broadening of the scope of Article 21. The Supreme Court moved away to a strict, textual meaning of the term procedure established by law to state that the procedure should be right, just and fair, thus injecting some aspect of substantive and procedural due process in the Indian Constitution. This paper critically analyzes the decision, its rationale, and the conceptual change between A. K. Gopalan to a dynamic, interrelated rule making both Articles 14 and 19 reconcile with Article 21. It was held that any law that violates personal liberty must qualify the test of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and proportionality and this has become the foundation of the criminal jurisprudence, the administrative law and protection of fundamental rights in India.
TO THE POINT
The case broadened Article 21 to include more than just the procedure that is stipulated by the law.
Brought about by due process of law by the judicial interpretation.
Imputed connection between Articles 14, 19, 21.
Bounded discretion of the executive in the Passports Act, 1967.
Added security of personal liberties and prescribed norms of arrest, detention and government action.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Maneka Gandhi, an activist and journalist was given a passport through Passports Act, 1967.
The Government of India impounded her passport in the public interest under Section 10 (3) (c).
There were no reasons as to why it was impounded and a hearing was not given to her.
Maneka Gandhi, through a writ petition under Article 32, contested the constitutional validity of 10 (3) (c) claiming that Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 19(1) and 21 had been violated.
LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
Whether the State can restrict personal liberty without providing a fair, just, and reasonable procedure?
Whether the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21?
Whether the procedure under the Passports Act satisfies constitutional standards?
Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive or interconnected?
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
Petitioner (Maneka Gandhi):
Without reason, restriction is against natural justice.
It is required that the procedure that has been established by law should be fair and non-arbitrary.
Impounding order contravenes all the Articles 14, 19 and 21 at the same time.
Respondent (Union of India):
The executive action was in popular interest.
Government has no duty to reveal causes of sensitive issues.
Article 21 does not mandate due process, but a procedure as mandated by statute.
RATIO DECINDIE COURT DECISION)
The Supreme Court held:
Article 21 does not have a limited understanding.
The procedure must be:
Fair
Reasonable
Not arbitrary
Not oppressive
Added the “Golden Triangle” -Articles 14, 19, 21.
The three articles need to be read as a team rather than individually.
Article 21 includes the right to personal liberty including travelling to other countries.
Article 21 is implicit on natural justice.
The executive acts that impinge on the rights must pass the reasonableness test.
LEGAL ANALYSIS (DETAILED)
Overruling A. K. Gopalan (1950)
Previously: Article 21 had only a requirement of a procedure that was established by law.
Procedure must meet the constitutional fairness in Maneka Gandhi.
This changed the Indian practice towards U.S. due process jurisprudence.
Enhancement of Personal Liberty.
The Court found that personal liberty entails:
Right to travel
Right to privacy (followed up in Puttaswamy).
Dignity
Liberty of arbitrary arrests.
This broadened the Article 21 significantly.
The Natural Justice Was Incorporated into the Constitution.
Audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was found to be a necessary provision in Article 21 unless otherwise stated.
Reasonableness Doctrine
Any act which curbs liberty must meet two conditions:
Substantive Due Process:
Even the law must be just and non-arbitrary.
Procedural Due Process:
The procedure to be applied to enforce the law should be fair, open, and without oppression.
Strengthening of Judicial Review.
The validity of law is only one thing that can be looked at by the courts, but the fairness of the procedure within the law is also looked at.
Referred Cases and Related Cases CASES LAWS.
K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Articles 14, 19, 21 were independent – Maneka Gandhi overruled.
Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer (1967)
Freedom to travel to other countries is individual freedom.
R. C. Cooper v. Bank Nationalisation Case of Union of India.
Introduced the tendency of reading fundamental rights collectively.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Article 21 to be extended to cover protection against custodial torture.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Article 21 gave rise to right to speedy trial.
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
About right to privacy, it was declared a fundamental right and Maneka Gandhi principles were applied.
CONCLUSION
The Maneka Gandhi v. judgment. The case of Union of India (1978) is a constitutional watershed, which re-established the meaning of personal liberty and changed how Article 21 was understood. It brought the ideals of fairness, reasonableness and natural justice to the center of the criminal and administrative law. The Court established a strong guard against state action that was arbitrary with the harmonization of Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21. The law today, which denies liberty, whether in arrest, detention, or passport restriction, must be subjected to the Maneka Gandhi test of substantive and procedural fairness. The case is still one of the most effective rulings in the history of human rights law in India.
FAQS
What was the meaning of Maneka Gandhi judgment?
It extended Article 21 and made due process of law in the interpretation of the Indian constitution.
Is there the right to international travel in Article 21?
Yes. The Court believed that this is an aspect of individual freedom.
What do you mean by Maneka Gandhi Test?
Any form of law that restricts liberty should be just, fair, reasonable and not arbitrary.
What impact did it encounter on previous jurisprudence?
It reversed A. K. Gopalan and inter depended Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Is the case limited to passports only?
No. It is relevant to the criminal law, administrative law, arrest, detention and immunity against arbitrariness.
