Law Maker

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 25 January 1978 · 7 judges · 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621, 1978 SCC (1) 248

Procedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; a hearing is implied in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which was held valid.

Facts

The petitioner's passport, issued under the Passports Act, 1967, was impounded by order dated 2 July 1977 under Section 10(3)(c) 'in public interest'. The Government declined, in the interest of the general public, to give her a copy of the statement of reasons. The affidavit later stated that her presence was likely to be required before Commissions of Inquiry. She challenged the order and Section 10(3)(c) under Article 32 as violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21, since the power was vague and was exercised without a hearing. During the hearing the Attorney General stated that the Government would consider her representation and give her a hearing, and that any confirmed impounding would not exceed six months.

Questions before the Court

  1. Whether the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21, and what kind of procedure Article 21 requires.
  2. Whether Articles 14, 19 and 21 are mutually exclusive.
  3. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 is void for excluding a hearing or for violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

What the Court held

  • Personal liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and includes the right to go abroad. A law depriving a person of personal liberty must also satisfy Article 19 where applicable, and Article 14.
  • Procedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; reasonableness, an essential element of Article 14, pervades it.
  • The audi alteram partem rule is read into Section 10(3)(c) by implication, and a hearing immediately after impounding suffices, so the procedure satisfies Article 21. The impugned order, made without reasons or hearing, breached natural justice, but the Attorney General's statement offering a hearing removed that defect.
  • Section 10(3)(c) is not void under Article 14 or 19(1)(a) or (g); an order under it may still be void if its direct effect abridges those rights. In view of the Attorney General's statement, the petition was disposed of without a formal order.

Why it matters

The majority opinions read Article 21 together with Articles 14 and 19, treating Gopalan's theory of mutually exclusive rights as no longer good law after R.C. Cooper. They require that procedure established by law be fair, just and reasonable, import natural justice into a statute that does not expressly provide a hearing, and apply the direct and inevitable effect test to State action affecting Article 19 freedoms.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 57 of the judgment
“The law, must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of 'personal liberty' and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental right conferred by Article 21, such law, in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that article.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 56 of the judgment
“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 been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 54 of the judgment
“It would not, therefore, be right to conclude that the audi alteram partem rule is excluded merely because the power to impound a passport might be frustrated, if prior notice and hearing were to be given to the person concerned before impounding his passport.”
Bhagwati, J.Page 66 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Case
Writ Petition No. 231 of 1977
Decided
25 January 1978
Bench
M. Hameedullah Beg (CJ), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam
Opinions
Separate opinions by Beg, C.J., Chandrachud, J., Bhagwati, J., Krishna Iyer, J. and Kailasam, J. Chandrachud, J. and Krishna Iyer, J. agreed with Bhagwati, J.; Beg, C.J. was in general agreement but would have quashed the order. Kailasam, J. held Article 19 inapplicable. The Court's order disposed of the petition 'having regard to the majority view'.

Questions on this case

10 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Constitutional Law Practice Set 1

    Which case held that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive?

    1. A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
    2. B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
    3. C. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
    4. D. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
    Show the answer

    B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

    In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that a procedure depriving a person of personal liberty under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, and read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together.

  2. Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    The principle that a procedure depriving a person of personal liberty under Article 21 must be 'right and just and fair' and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive was laid down in:

    1. A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
    2. B. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
    3. C. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
    4. D. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
    Show the answer

    A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

    In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness under Article 14, that is, it must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. This departed from the narrower reading of 'procedure established by law' in A.K. Gopalan (1950).

  3. Question 3 · Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence Practice Set 1

    "Audi alteram partem" is a core principle of:

    1. A. Res Judicata
    2. B. Estoppel
    3. C. Natural Justice
    4. D. Vicarious Liability
    Show the answer

    C. Natural Justice

    Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is one of the two pillars of natural justice, the other being nemo judex in causa sua. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) read fair hearing into Article 21.