Case Analysis:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

India
Submitted to:

Ms. Kuhu Tiwari

(Faculty of Legal Method)

Submitted by:

Shubham Singh
BA.LLB. (Hons.)
Semester I, Roll No.
Section B

Submitted on: 31st August, 2017

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur- 493661 (C.G.)

1
 Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work titled Case Analysis: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India is my own work and represents my own ideas and where others ideas or words have
been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that
I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not
misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission. It is a
record of bonafide project work carried out by me under the guidance of Ms. Kuhu Tiwari,
faculty member, H.N.L.U., Raipur. I further declare that the project has not been submitted,
either in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any other institute or
university.

Shubham Singh
Semester I, Section B
Roll No.

2
 Acknowledgement
I feel highly elated to work on the case - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

No creation in this world is a sole effort, nor is this work of mine. The practical realisation of
this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. First of all I would thank my
faculty teacher Ms. Kuhu Tiwari for her invaluable suggestions and guidance. It would have
not been possible for me to frame this project of mine without her support.

I would like to thank my family and friends, without their support and encouragement, this
project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing
extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. Some typing errors might
have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to receive comments and
suggestions to further improve this project report.

Shubham Singh

Semester 1, Section B

Roll No.

3
 Table of Contents

Declaration .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 3
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Objectives of the study ........................................................................................................................... 6
Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 7
Reference Details .................................................................................................................................... 8
Facts of the Case ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Issues of the case .................................................................................................................................. 10
Contentions of the Petitioner ............................................................................................................... 11
Judgement............................................................................................................................................. 12
Ratio Decidendi of the Case .................................................................................................................. 14
Obiter Dicta of the Case ........................................................................................................................ 17
Impact of the Case ................................................................................................................................ 19
References ............................................................................................................................................ 22

4
 Introduction
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

The decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1was, according to Adam M. Smith, an

inflection point2 for courts of India in interpreting the fundamental rights. The Supreme
Court of India gave a broader meaning to article 213 which led to further interpretation and
emancipation of constitution of India that was thought to be a restricted field of study by
many.
The circumstances that set the stage for the Maneka Gandhi judgement in 1978 are
important,the national emergency which was declared by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed in
1975 and was characterised by strict censorship and detention of political prisoners, had
recently ended. In 1976; in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla4, the Supreme Court
had unhappily held that a detenue could not file a habeas corpus petition challenging the
legality of his detention during an emergency. A large segment of citizens had lost faith in the
judiciary. Indias democratic structure had faced an onslaught, as the Indra Gandhi-led
Congress government (ousted in 1977) had passed a deluge of revolutionary constitutional
amendments which severly impinged on a persons fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court departed from the straitjacketed interpretation of fundamental rights in
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras5 and held that the fundamental rights form an integrated
scheme under the Constitution. The court stated:Articles dealing with different fundamental
rights contained in Part III of the Constitution do not represent entirely separate streams of
rights which do not mingle at many points. They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the
Constitution. Their waters must mix to constitute that grand flow of unimpeded and impartial
justice. Isolation of various aspects of human freedom, for purposes of their protection, is
neither realistic nor beneficial.6

With its decision in Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court attempted to restore the citizens
faith in the judiciary. It went beyond its immediate mandate to make some striking assertions,
which went on to become bedrock of the protection of human rights of the aam admi7in the
years that followed. The case marked the beginning of a golden era of human rights
jurisprudence in India a period in which the Supreme Court transformed itself into an
institutional ombudsman of human rights.

1
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi V.Union of India (UOI) and Anr.1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
2
Adam M. Smith, Making itself at Home-Understanding Foreign Law in domestic jurisprudence: The Indian
case, Berkley Journal of International Law, vol. 24 (2006): p. 218.
3
Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
4
AIR 1976 SC 1207.
5
1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
6
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1131127/jsp/opinion/story_17616409.jsp
7
Commonly used term in India; translated from the Hindi to mean the common man

5
 Objectives of the study
The objectives of this project works are:
I. To understand the facts and issues of this case;
1. The main facts, situations, and circumstances of the case.
2. The laws that were challenged in the case.
3. The basic issues that were raised in the case.
II. To understand the judgement or the outcome of the case;
1. Grasping the ratio decidendi of the case

2. Grasping the obiter dicta of the case.

III. To understanding both sides of the case
1. The criticisms of the case

2. The impact of the case

6
 Research Methodology
Nature of Research
This research work is descriptive in nature. The project aims to analyse the Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India, its issues, judgement, ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, and criticism.And to
understand how the interpretation of fundamental right to life and personal liberty reached ro
a broader meaning.

Sources of Data
The study is done with the help of secondary data. This secondary information has been
obtained primarily from published sources such as books, journals, newspapers, official
websites, government publications and surveys etc.

Mode of Citation
A uniform mode of citation has been used throughout the project. The sentences or words
have been superscripted with a number and their source has been mentioned at the end of the
page with the aforementioned number.

7
 Reference Details
Writ Petition No. - 231 of 1977
Petitioner - Mrs. Maneka Gandhi
Respondent Union of India
Date Of Judegement 25.01.1978
Bench- M. Hameedullah Beg, C.J., N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, P.S. Kailasam, S. Murtaza
Fazal Ali, V.R. Krishna Iyer and Y.V. Chandrachud8.

8
http://www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalized.aspx

8
 Facts of the Case
Background:
The Maneka Gandhi case arose in the period immediately following the end of the national
Emergency in India, with the Janata Party government assuming power in 1977. Maneka
Gandhi, daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indra Gandhi and founder-editor of a
political magazineSurya, was issued a passport in1976 under the Passports Act. Soon after
the Congress Party was ousted by the Janata Party, she began using Surya as a political
platform to restore the image of the Congress Party and discredit leaders of the new
government.

Facts:
In !977, around the time she wished to leave India to fulfil a speaking engagement9, Maneka
Gandhi received a letter stating that the Government of India has decided to impound her
passport in public interest under section 10(3)(c)10 of the Passports Act. The government
turned down her request seeking the reasons why the order had been passed, stating that it
was not in the interest of general public.

Further Action:
In reaction, she filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the passport
impounding order of the government of India and its subsequent refusal to provide reasons
for the same.11

9
S.P. Sayje, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, WashingtonUniversity Journal of Law and Policy, vol.
6(2001): p.29
10
The section states : The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or
travel document . . . (c) if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the
interests of the general public.
11
Ziya Modi, Life, Uninterrupted: The Supreme Courts Chance at Redemption, Ten Judgements that Changed
India, p. 39.

9
 Issues of the case
The main issues of 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
21of the constitution.
4. Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of
the principle of natural justice.

10
 Contentions of the Petitioner
1. The right to go abroad is part of "personal liberty" within the meaning of that expression as
used in Art. 21 and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure
prescribed by law. There is no procedure prescribed by the Passport Act, for impounding or
revoking a Passport. Even if some procedure can be traced in the said Act it is unreasonable
and arbitrary in as much as it does not provide for giving an opportunity to the holder of the
Passport to be heard against the making of the order.

2. Section 10(3) (c) is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19(1) (a) and
(g) and 21.

3. The impugned order is made in contravention of the rules of natural justice and is, therefore,
null and void.The impugned order has effect of placing an unreasonable restriction on the
right of free speech andexpression guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19(1) (a) as also
on the right to carry on the profession ofa journalist conferred under Art. 19 (1) (g).

4. The impugned order could not consistently with Articles 19(1)(a) and (g)be passed on a mere
informationof the Central Government that the presence of the petitioner is likely to be
required in connection with theproceedings before the Commission of Inquiry.

5. In order that a passport may be impounded under s. 10 (3) (c), public interest must actually
exist in presentand mere likelihood of public interest .arising in future would be no ground for
impounding the passport.

6. It was not correct to say that the petitioner was likely to be required for .giving evidence
before the ShahCommission.

The respondents denied the contentions raised by the petitioner.

11
 Judgement
On the numerous issues raised in the petition, the seven judge bench of the Court was
unanimous except on three issues. On two issues, Kailasham, J. took a different view and on
another he was ambivalent. The principle majority judgement was delivered by Bhagwati, j.
for himself and two other judges. Chief Justice Beg and Justice Chandrachud and Justice
Krishna Iyer, in separate but brief judgements, expressed their general concurrence with
Justice Bhagwati. On the other hand Justice Kailasham in a separate judgement, adopted a
different approach reaching the same conclusions as the majority, except on three issues,
which incidentally can be said to form the crux of the decision in the case.
Judgment and the Guidelines Issued:

To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the
passport authority to impound a passport in the interest of the general public, it
violates Article 14as it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power as it doesnt provide for a
hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article as 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).
A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.
One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections
between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21.
This law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty has
to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.
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 rule was an enabling law which must also be just, fair and reasonable.

View point of:

1. Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg
Justice Beg said that the case involves questions relating to basic human rights. On such
questions he believed that multiplicity of views giving the approach of each member of that
Court is not a disadvantage if it clarifies their not infrequently differing approaches. It should
enable all interested to appreciate better the significance of our Constitution.
He held that the right to travel and to go outside the country, which orders regulating issue,
suspension or impounding, and cancellation of passports directly affect, must be included in
rights to "personal liberty" on the strength of decisions of this Court giving a very wide ambit
to the right to personal liberty. According to him it was evident that Article 21, though so
framed as to appear as a shield operating negatively against executive encroachment over

12
something covered by that shield, is the legal recognition of both the protection or the shield
as well as of what it protects which lies beneath that shield.

2. Justice H J Kania
He said that Deprivation (total loss) of personal liberty, which inter alia includes the right to
eat or sleep when one likes or to work or not to work as and when one pleases and several
such rights sought to be protected by the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21, is quite
different from restriction (which is only a partial control) of the right to move freely (which is
relatively a minor right of a citizen) as safeguarded by Article 19(1)(d). Deprivation of
personal liberty has not the same meaning as restriction of free movement in the territory of
India. Justice Kania quoted:

If Article 19 is considered to be the only article safeguarding personal liberty

several well-recognised rights, as for instance, the right to eat or drink, the right to
work, play, swim and numerous other rights and activities and even the right to life
will not be deemed protected under the Constitution. I do not think that is the
intention. It seems to me improper to read Article 19 as dealing with the same subject
as Article 21. Article 19 gives the rights specified therein only to the citizens of India
while Article 21 is applicable to all persons. The word citizen is expressly defined in
the Constitution to indicate only a certain section of the inhabitants of India.
Moreover, the protection given by Article 21 is very general. It is of 'law'- whatever
that expression is interpreted to mean. The legislative restrictions on the law-making
powers of the legislature are not here prescribed in detail as in the case of the rights
specified in Article 19. In my opinion therefore Article 19 should be read as a
separate complete article

Conclusively, it was held that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act confers vague and
undefined power on the passport authorities, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
since it doesnt provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also
held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word procedure as mentioned in
the clause, and the present procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court,
however, refrained from passing any formal answer on the matter, and ruled that the passport
would remain with the authorities till they deem fit.

13
 Ratio Decidendi of the Case
Ratio Decidendi is commonly defined as the reasons for the judgment. It basically refers to
the material part of the judgment without which the judge would have been unable to reach to
the present conclusion of the case.

Before stating the ratio of the case and the reasons for the same, lets first look at Section
10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967 if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations
of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public;

Following is the ratio of the case, with an analysis of the same

1. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution.

Article 14 of the Constitution talks about equality before law. This provision is absolutely
against arbitrariness or vagueness of any sort as far as the actions of the executive are
concerned. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act confers unlimited powers on the passport
authorities. Since it is vague in its wordings, the application of such a provision has not been
very clearly defined in the Act. Thus, this leaves a lot of scope for the executive to interpret it
in whichever way they want, and hence get away with a lot of actions under the guise of
varied interpretation.

The provision also leads to arbitrariness in the actions of the executive. The arbitrariness
comes from the fact that it is completely in the hands of the passport authorities to decide
whether or not, and how to proceed in a particular case. The words deems it necessary give
the passport authorities complete freedom to act in whichever manner they want, and in
whichever cases they want. Thus there is no uniformity or reasonableness in the actions of the
passport authorities, and their actions could differ from case to case.

E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Another,[1974] 2 SCR 348, was the judgement
applied by the Supreme Court to further justify their views. It was held in this case that
Article 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian Constitution and hence cannot be bound by a
narrow and inflexible interpretation. Article 14 should thus be given the widest interpretation
possible, which also includes reasonableness and arbitrariness of certain provisions of the
legislations.

Based on these observations the Court held Section 10(3)(c) of The Passport Act violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice: The Audi Alteram Partem Rule.

The audialterampartem rule is one of the three principles of natural justice, and forms an
important part in defining the constitutionality and fairness of any procedure. The literal
translation of audialterampartem is hear the other side. In a laymans language it basically

14
means that both the sides should be given the opportunity to present their case before a
decision is formulated for the case. In the present case, Maneka Gandhi was denied reasons
for the impounding of her passport, which is unfair since every person has the right to know
the grounds on which any executive action is being taken against him/her. Also, she was
never given a chance to present her own case before the authorities.

The principle of audialterampartem requires that before the final order for the impounding of
her passport was passed, Smt. Maneka Gandhi should have been given a chance to approach
the authorities and to bring to light her part of the story so that the order for impounding of
the passport would have been just. There is always the possibility of arriving at a one sided
conclusion when only one party has been heard and the other is denied that opportunity. Thus
to keep the orders completely objective and free from bias, it is absolutely imperative that
both parties to a situation must be given a chance to put forward their side of the story.

In the present case, during the Court proceedings itself, the passport authorities ultimately
ceded to the fact that they had been wrong in not providing Smt. Maneka Gandhi a chance to
present her case. Thus, they ultimately agreed to withhold the order and give her a chance to
present her case before the concerned authorities. But what is important to note is that the
authorities had been held wrong in the first place, and only to mitigate the blame had they
accepted to let her present her case. The final change of events prevented them from being
held liable. Otherwise, they were definitely in the wrong and even the Court had held that
their action had been arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3. Section 10(3)(c) not Violative of Article 19(1)(A) and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution talks about the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed to all citizens of the country. Article 19(1)(g), on the other hand, talks about
freedom to carry out any trade and profession. Smt. Maneka Gandhi had alleged that the
order to impound her passport also violates these two rights of hers. She alleged that the
freedom of speech and expression also includes in its ambit the right to travel abroad to
express oneself among the people of other nations. Thus according to her, the freedom of
speech and expression also included the right to go abroad to mingle with people, to carry out
an exchange of ideas, to be able to converse with the people of other nations, and thus to be
able to freely speak and express oneself outside India as well. Now since she had been denied
the right to travel out of India due to the impounding of her passport, she alleged that her
right to freedom of speech and expression had been violated. The same way, she said that
since she was a journalist, it was part of her profession to travel to different parts of the
world, to cover news issues. Thus by denying her the opportunity to travel abroad, the
passport authorities had violated her right of trade and profession.

It was held by the Court that even though the above mentioned contentions were correct and
that such an order would in fact amount to violations of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), there
was nothing to prove that Ms. Gandhi was scheduled to travel on an official tour at the time
the impugned order was passed and her passport was impounded. Neither was there anything
to prove that she had some earnest need to travel abroad towards realization of her right of
expression under article 19(1), for eg. Public speaking, dancing, literature, art, etc.Thus this
argument was rejected and the order was not held to be violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g).

15
However, the Court did go on to clarify that if at any point of time in the future she was
denied her passport from the government when sheneeded or wanted to travel abroad to
exercise either of the two rights under 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) and the government denied such
rights it would be considered to be an infringement of these two fundamental rights.

4. The order is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer,

Government of India, New Delhi & Ors, the Supreme Court held by a majority judgement
that the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 takes in the right of locomotion and travel
abroad, and under Article 21 no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except
according to the procedure established by law. This decision was accepted by the Parliament
and the infirmity pointed out by it was set right by the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967.

Keeping in mind this right, Smt. Maneka Gandhi alleged that her right to travel abroad had
been violated by the passport authorities. Also, the clause talking about procedure
established by law was contended in that the procedure adopted in this case was arbitrary
and unfair. Maneka Gandhi contested that the procedure in this particular case was violative
of the audialterampartemrule; it was arbitrary in that she was denied the statement of reasons
for the impounding of her passport; and it was also violative of her fundamental rights
because she was being denied the right to travel abroad under Article 21, without being given
valid reasons for the same.

As far as the procedural discrepancy was concerned, the attorney for the government
accepted the fact that the actions had been arbitrary and hence she was given the chance to
put forward her contentions. Thus that anomaly was taken care of. As far as the question of
her fundamental rights was concerned, it was held that true her fundamental right had been
violated, but it was in the interest of the general public. The Court has adopted a liberal
interpretation of Article 21 in the case, and expanded its ambit by leaps and bounds.
However, the Court has refrained from outrightly commenting on this issue in this particular
case.

16
 Obiter Dicta of the Case
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression {Article 19(1)(a)} is not bound only to the
national territories of India

This was a landmark opinion of the Court and one that was highly celebrated by the entire
country. The Court in the course of this case opined that the right to freedom of speech and
expression, as guaranteed to all the citizens of the country, was limitless in that it had given
to the citizens a vast number of rights irrespective of whether they were in India or abroad.
The Court held that if the Constitution makers had intended this right to be bound by the
territories of the country, then they would have expressly mentioned so as they have done for
various other rights, such as the right to settle down freely, or the right to assemble freely.
However, since no such words had been added at the end of this provision, the Court felt that
it was its duty to give it the widest interpretation possible.

Also, supporting this view was the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December, 1948 and most of
the fundamental rights which we find included in Part III were recognised and adopted by the
United Nations as the inalienable rights of man in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. This further supported the view of the Court in that even though Indian Courts may
not have jurisdiction outside the territory of India, but these rights as guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution would still be maintained since they were now fortified by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by almost all the countries around the
globe.

Giving this kind of an opinion was a landmark judgement and even though it may not have
the value of a precedent (since it is an obiter),Courts all over the country have adopted this
view of the Supreme Court, and used it in their judgements.

2. Article 21 is not to be read in isolation; all violations and procedural

requirement under Article 21 are to be tested forArticle 14 and Article 19 also.

The Supreme Court in the present case had adopted the widest possible interpretation of the
right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bhagwati,
J. observed:

The expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of 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.

Also, with respect to the relationship between Article 19 and Article 21, the Court held that
Article 21 is controlled by Article 19, i.e., it must satisfy the requirement of Article 19. The
Court observed:

The law must therefore now be 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 a law in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right

17
 under Article 19 would have to meet the challenges of that Article.Thus a law
depriving a person of personal liberty has not only to stand the test

of Article 21, but it must stand the test of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution as
well.

18
 Impact of the Case
The most striking aspect of the Supreme Courts introduction of substantive due process was
that it empowered courts to expand the limited phraseology of the right to life under Indian
Constitution, to include a wide range of un-enumerated rights. Derived from article 21, these
rights cover areas such as the rights of prisoners, protection of women and children, and
environmental rights. Since Maneka Gandhi, courts have included the following rights within
the embrace of the right to life and personal liberty under article 21:
1. Rights of Prisoners including protection from handcuffing without adequate
reasons12, access to a transcript of the judgement and facilities to exercise his right to
appeal against his conviction, the right to treatment with dignity and humanity13, the
right of an undertrial to be released from custody if the police fail to file a
chargesheet within the period prescribed by the law, protection from custodial
violence and protection against public hanging.
2. Environmental Rights includes right to a humane and healthy environment, right to
sustainable development, protection from pollution hazards due to use of pesticides14,
and the right to live without undue affection of air, water and the environment.
3. Other Rights including the right to live with human dignity, including access to
nutrition, clothing and shelter15, the right to free education of children upto the age of
fourteen years16, the right to livelihood17, protection of ones reputation, access to just
and humane conditions of work, protection of health and strength of workers and
maternity relief.
Although the Maneka Gandhi Judgement permanently clipped the wings of the legislature, it
faces little or no hostility from any of the branches of the government, unlike other
judgements in the same period. In over three decades since the judgement, the right to life
and personal liberty under article 21 has gradually become a repository of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of India,

12
Haskot v. State of Maharashta (AIR 1978 SC 1548)
13
Hussainara khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360)
14
Ashok v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 2298)
15
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 946)
16
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 2178)
17
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporatin (AIR 1986 SC 180)

19
 Criticisms of the Case
Maneka Gandhi case is criticised first, on the ground that it was based on ooper and S. N.
Sarkar reasoning, which were erroneous in perceiving Gopalan judgements. It is submitted,
the majority judgements in Maneka Gandhi case did not fall into such an error, as they
properly understood Gopalan about its proposition that Arts. 21 and 22 were interrelated and
that law under article 21 was required to be valid law. The only error was misreading of
directness of legislation test as the doctrine of exclusiveness. Although their dislike about
directness of legislation test was clear, their concern to streamline the effect test of Cooper
by introducing the element of inevitability of consequence was equally manifest.
Secondly, it is criticised that Maneka Gandhi Case has ignored independent basis and
existence of each fundamental right and tended to treat the rights interchangeably, an
approach which goes against the constitutional intention. It is submitted, because on the clear
focus on inevitable consequence, the independent bases of different rights are clearly
recognised, and the interrelationship idea has not gone to the extreme end of melting of
different rights into a single substance.
Thirdly, it is criticised that sudden change in the judicial approach is not in the accordance
with the norms of constitutional adjudication. It is submitted, survey of cases for a period of
27 years after Gopalan Case shows gradual dilution of Gopalan test and introduction of re-
orientation of alternative approach.
Finally, it is criticised as providing for dilution of principles of natural justice by allowing
post decision hearing. This criticism is justified as there was no need of dilution in the
circumstances of the case.
The most conspicuous aspect of the case is the propostion that Fundamental Rights are to be
treated in a synthetic manner. As Justice Krishna Iyer observed
No article in part III is an island but port of a continent, and concepts of a whole
Part gives the direction and correction needed for interpretation of these basic
provisions. Man is not dissectible into separate limbs and likewise, cardinal rights in
an organic Constitution which make man human have a synthesis.
This approach is an offshoot of a heightened awareness that courts should not interpret
constitutional rights enshrined in part III to choke its life breath or chill its elan vitale by
processes of legalism overruling the enduring values.

The Supreme Courts judgment in Maneka Gandhi has been widely critiqued as one that went
out of bounds with reference to the facts before the court. The matter concerned, on the face
of it, the impounding of an individuals passport. The Attorney-General had undertaken that

20
 CONCLUSION
Maneka Gandhi would be provided a post-decisional hearing. Moreover, even if the
government decided to stand by its impounding order after hearing Maneka Gandhi, it had
conceded that the period of impounding would not exceed six months from the date of its
fresh order. Instead of deciding the case on this finite ground, the court chose to consider
several peripheral issues yes, these issues were pivotal to Indias governance, but
peripheral to the case in judgments that together added up to over 70,000 words.

Indeed, why did the Supreme Court say more than what needed to be said? The immediate
cause of the courts expansive, rights-based approach in Maneka Gandhi was the criticism it
faced for its decision during the Emergency in the ADM Jabalpur case. In fact, Maneka
Gandhi was followed by a series of actions undertaken by the court and its judges to distance
themselves from ADM Jabalpur this was akin to an acknowledgement that it had violated
the fundamental rights of a large number of people thirty-four years after the case was
decided.

And, yet, though the Supreme Court embarked on an inquiry not necessitated by the facts
before it in Maneka Gandhi, when we look at it from a result-oriented approach, the courts
interpretation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 played a hugely beneficial role in shaping Indias
constitutional policy.0000

Does a law that satisfies all procedural requirements in its enactment, however arbitrary or
unreasonable, meet the test of Article 21? This is the question that the Supreme Court sought
to answer in Maneka Gandhi. By vesting in itself the power of substantive review under
Article 21, the court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog
of the Constitution. This is the seminal importance of the Maneka Gandhidecision.

Some would wonder why there was so much excitement over a verdict that essentially
recognised the right of a member of Indias most influential political family to go abroad. It is
the constitutional developments after Maneka Gandhi that highlight how it was one of the
cases that truly changed India. For most jurists, it was a turning point in the Supreme Courts
interpretation of Article 21. The court moved from a pedantic to a purposive approach in
construing the sweep of the right to life under the Constitution. The judgment became a
springboard for the evolution of the law relating to judicial preservation of human rights.

The most striking aspect of the Supreme Courts introduction of substantive due process was
that it empowered courts to expand the limited phraseology of the right to life under the
Constitution, to include a wide range of un-enumerated rights. Derived from Article 21, these
rights cover areas such as the rights of prisoners, protection of women and children, and
environmental rights.

21
 References
Cases

Haskot v. State of Maharashta (AIR 1978 SC 1548)

Hussainara khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360)
Ashok v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 2298)
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 946)
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 2178)
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporatin (AIR 1986 SC 180)

Offline books

Ten Judgements that Changed India

The Constitution of India, DD Basu

Journal Articles

Yale Law Journal

The Indian Express, Maneka Gandhi Case

Websites

http://lawfarm.in/blogs/a-case-analysis-of-the-maneka-gandhi-case
http://lawnn.com/maneka-gandhi-case-maneka-gandhi-vs-union-india/
http://lawmantra.co.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india-25th-january-1978/
http://www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalized.aspx

22