Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

25th January 1978


The factual summary of Maneka Gandhi case is as
follows:
- Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on
1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The
regional passport officer , New Delhi issued a letter
dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi , in
which she was asked to surrender her passport
under section 10(3)(c ) of the Act in public interest,
within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the
Regional passport officer New Delhi seeking in
return a copy of the statement of reasons for such
order. However the government of India, Ministry of
External Affairs refused to produce any such
reason in the interest of general public.
- Maneka Gandhi then filed a writ petition under
Article 32 of the constitution in the Supreme Court
challenging the order of the government of India as
violating her fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE


The main issues before the court in this case were as
follows:
1. Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to
personal liberty under Article 21?
2. Whether the Passport Act prescribes a procedure
as required by Article 21 before depriving a
person from the right guaranteed under the said
Article?
3. Whether section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act is
violative of Article 14, 19(1) (a) and 21 of the
constitution?
4. Whether the impugned order of the regional
passport officer is in contravention of the principles
of natural justice?

ARUGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to
personal liberty under Article 21?
In Satwant Singh's case, this Court bell by a
majority that the expression 'personal liberty' in
Article 21 takes in, the right of locomotion and travel
abroad and under Art. 21 no person can be deprived
of his right to go abroad except according to the
procedure established by law.
In Satwant Singh Sawhney's case this Court ruled, by
majority, that the expression personal liberty which
occurs in Art. 21 of the Constitution includes the right
to travel abroad and that no person can be deprived
of that right except according to procedure
established by law. The mere prescription of some
kind of procedure cannot even meet the mandate of
Article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be
fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or
arbitrary. The question whether the procedure
prescribed by law which curtails or takes away the
personal liberty guaranteed byA r t. 21 is reasonable
or not has to be considered not in the abstract or on
hypothetical considerations like the provision for a
full-dressed hearing as in a court room trial but in the
contest, primarily, of the purpose which the Act is
intended to achieve and of urgent situations which
those who are charged with the duty of administering
the Act may be called upon to deal with.
Secondly, even the fullest compliance with the
requirements of Art. 21 is not the journey's end
because a law which prescribes fair and reasonable
procedure for curtailing or taking away the personal
liberty granted by Art. 21 has still to meet a possible
challenge under the other provisions of the
Constitution.
2.Whether the Passport Act prescribes a
procedure as required by Article 21 before
depriving a person from the right guaranteed
under the said Article?
One of the significant interpretation in this case is the
discovery of inter connections between the three
Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which
prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of
personal liberty has to fulfill the requirements of
Articles 14 and 19 also.

3. Whether section 10(3) (c) of the Passport Act


is violative of Article 14, 19(1) (a) and 21 of the
constitution?
To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967 authorises the passport
authority to impound a passport in the interest of
the general public, it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution since it confers vague and
undefined power on the passport authority.
Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary
power since it does not provide for a hearing to the
holder of the passport before the passport is
impounded.
Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution since it does not prescribe procedure
within the meaning of that article and the
procedure practiced is worst.
Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed
on the rights guaranteed by these articles even
though such restrictions cannot be imposed under
articles 19(2) and 19(6).
5.Whether the impugned order of the regional
passport officer is in contravention of the
principles of natural justice?

JUDGEMENT:

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the
country is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law
was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be
just, fair and reasonable.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[vii]BHAGWATI


J.,has emphasized on the significance of the freedom of
speech & expression in these words:
Democracy is based essentially on free debate and
open discussion, for that is the only corrective of
government action in a democratic set up. If
democracy means government of the people by the
people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled
to participate in the democratic process and in order to
enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making
a choice, free & general discussion of public matters is
absolutely essential.
This aspect of the right to freedom of speech and
expression extending the concept of citizenship to
include socio-political participation of a person is critical
in the process of determining the scope of right to life
of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is
important to note that the scope of the freedom
of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution has been expanded to include
the right to receive and disseminate information.
It includes the right to communicate and
circulate information through any medium
including print media, audio, television broadcast
or electronic media.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen