A Synopsis of -

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India

Equivalent Citations – 1978 AIR 597; 1978 SCR (2) 621

Introduction
The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India is considered to be a Landmark
Judgment due to the transformation of the interpretation and understanding of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Through this case an implication was raised regarding the presence and
derivative capability of many more rights from Article 21. The case is centered
and revolves around the concept of “Personal Liberty”.

“Personal Liberty” according to sources such as USLegal1, Merriam-Webster

Dictionary2, Black’s Law Dictionary3 etc. means the right of an individual to
behave in any manner they see fit while staying within the restrictions placed
on them by the Law or the Society.

Landmark Judgment
A Landmark Decision is a judgment which establishes precedents that
determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise,
substantially affect the interpretation of existing law.

The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is considered to be a Landmark

Judgment because of the ways in which it changed the interpretation of
Fundamental Rights under Article 19 and 21.

1
Personal liberty is the liberty of an individual to behave as one pleases except for those restraints imposed by laws
and codes of conduct of the society in which one lives to safeguard the physical, moral, political, and economic
welfare of others. For instance, liberty of an individual which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing
situation, or removing his person to whatsoever place his own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or
restraint, unless by due course of law.
2
the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority o f politically organized
society to regulate his action to secure the public health, safety, or morals or of other recognized social
interests
3
The right of freedom of a person to behave as they would like. Though following the conduct code of the society in
which a person resides is important.
The court gave the opinion that the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
which was guaranteed to all the citizens of the country was limitless, meaning
that the right would be conferred to all the citizens of India, whether they were
inside the physical and geographical territory of India or not, due to fact that
no restrictive language has been used in this provision as has been used in
many other provisions. The court also went forward and said that even if
Indian courts have no jurisdiction in other countries, these laws and
fundamental rights would still continue to apply since they have been derived
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they are recognized and
adopted as by the United Nations as Inalienable Human Rights.

The Supreme Court also adopted the widest possible interpretation of Article
21, going so far as to say that Article 21 is controlled by Article 19, and
therefore, any law which deprives a person of their “Personal Liberty”, would
not only have to stand the test of Article 21 but also the test of Article 19 and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Facts of the Case

 On 01/06/1976, a passport was issued to Maneka Gandhi under the

Passport Act of 1967.
 On 02/07/1977, a letter was written to Maneka Gandhi by the Regional
Passport Officer, New Delhi, in which Maneka Gandhi was asked to
surrender her passport, citing the reason as “Public Interest” as per the
provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act.
 Maneka Gandhi received this letter on the 4th of July.
 The letter also clarified that she had a total of 7 days from the receipt of
the letter to comply with the directions of the letter.
 Maneka Gandhi immediately replied to the Regional Passport Officer,
New Delhi, requesting a copy of the Statement of Reasons for such an
order.
 Maneka Gandhi received a reply from the Ministry of External Affairs, on
the 7th of July, in which it said that the decision to impound her Passport
was taken by the Government of India and it was done in the interest of
the general public. She was further intimated that there were orders
which prohibited issuing the Statement of Reasons for impound of her
passport.
 Seeing no other recourse, Maneka Gandhi filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of India.
Decision of the Court
The court held that Section 10(3)(c)4 of the Passport Act, 1967 bestows vague
and undefined power to the Passport Authorities.

Moreover, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the

Principle of Natural Justice since it doesn’t provide the aggrieved party with an
opportunity to be heard.

The court also observed Section 10(3)(c) to be in violation of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India since it does not confirm to the definition of the word
“procedure” as mentioned in the Article and the present procedure in force was
one of the worst possible ones.

But, even after all of these observations and proclamations, the court failed to
give a clear cut formal answer on the matter at hand, only to say that the
passport shall remain with the authorities till they deem fit.

Ratio Decidendi
A Ratio Decidendi is defined by USLegal5, Merriam-Webster Dictionary6,
Black’s Law Dictionary7 etc., as the reasons based on which a judgment is
given. In other words, it refers to the reasons, observations, conclusions and
interpretations without which a judge would have been unable to reach the
conclusion of the case.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the following points were
treated as the Ratio Decidendi:-

1. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India –

What is Article 14 of the Constitution of India? It is an Article which talks

about equality before law. This provision, which in itself is crystal clear and

4
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;
5
Ratio decidendi (plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning “the reason for the decision.” Ratio decidendi
refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles on which a court’s decision rests. It is the rationale for
reaching the decision of a case. It is binding on lower courts through the principle of Stare decisis.
6
the principle or rule constituting the b asis of a court decision
7
a Latin phrase that means the reason for a decision.
lacks any form of alternate interpretation, completely forbids arbitrariness or
vagueness of any sort when the actions of the executives are concerned.

As discussed earlier, the court was of the view that Section 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967 confers unlimited powers on the Passport Authorities
(executives). And since the section itself is vague, its application has not been
clearly defined. This gives the executives a lot of leeway to interpret the section
in whichever manner they see fit, allowing them to get away with a lot of
actions which might have otherwise been wrong/against the essence of the act
if the section and its application were properly defined.

This free reign over interpreting the section and application also leads to a lot
of arbitrariness in the actions of the executive. The phrase used in the section
“deems it necessary” creates such a large pocket of interpretative
understanding which gives the Passport Authorities the complete freedom to
act in whichever manner they want in whichever cases they want. This kind of
interpretative freedom leads to an utter lack of uniformity and reasonableness
in the actions of the passport authorities, which would then vary and differ
from case to case in an unprecedented manner.

Finally, the Supreme Court placed reliance upon the case of E.P. Royappa v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Another8.In this case the Supreme Court had held
that –

“Article 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian Constitution, and should thus be
given the widest interpretation possible, which also includes reasonableness
and arbitrariness of certain provisions of the legislations.”

Using these justifications the Supreme Court held Section 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967, to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice – The Audi Alteram

Partem Rule –

The Audi Alteram Partem Rule is one of the three rules of the Principles of
Natural Justice. These rules are integrated into every legal system around the
world and they must be executed at all cost, otherwise the very
constitutionality and fairness of any procedure can be brought under question
and scrutiny.

8
[1974] 2 SCR 348
Audi Alteram Partem is a latin phrase and its literal translation is – “Listen to
the other side” or “Let the other side be heard as well”. So, a simple
interpretation of the term will lead us to understand that both the sides in a
dispute must be heard or that equal opportunity to be heard must be granted
to each side of a dispute, in other words, both the sides must be given an
opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, Maneka Gandhi was denied
the disclosure of the Statement of Reasons for the impounding of her passport,
which is unfair since every person has the right to know the grounds on which
any action is being taken against them. Moreover, she was never awarded a
chance to contest the decision of the authorities and to provide a defense which
made her owning a passport “Against Public Interest”.

In the end, when Maneka Gandhi approached the Supreme Court of India, the
Passport Authorities ceded and accepted the fact that they were wrong in not
providing Maneka Gandhi with a chance to present her case and her
arguments. Therefore, they agreed to withhold the impounding of her passport
until the decision of the Supreme Court was given.

The important aspect here is the confession of the Passport Authorities

regarding their unjustified and possibly ultra vires use of their powers.

3. Section 10(3)(c) is not violative of Article 19(1) (A) and (G) of the
Constitution of India.

Article 19(1) (A) and (G) talk about the Freedom of Speech and Expression to all
the citizens of the country and the Freedom to carry out any Trade and
Profession a citizen may so choose, respectively.

It was alleged by Maneka Gandhi that the act of impounding her passport also
violated the rights guaranteed to her under Article 19(1) (A) and (G). She
reasoned that the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression also guaranteed
her the right to travel to other countries to share ideas, views and to converse
with people of multiple nationalities.

She also claimed that since she was a journalist by profession, by impounding
her passport, she was being actively prevented from going to different parts of
the world and cover different news issues, thereby curtailing and restricting her
right of Freedom to carry out any trade and profession.

The court, while accepting these arguments from Maneka Gandhi, said that at
the time of impounding her passport, there was no proof to substantiate the
claim that Maneka Gandhi was going on an official tour. Similar was the case
in regards to travelling abroad to express her views on topics such as Dancing,
Literature, Public Speaking, Art, etc.

Therefore, the court was of the opinion that the act of impounding Maneka
Gandhi’s passport did not lead to the violation of these fundamental rights.
However, the court did stress on the point that the lack of proof now, did not
mean that proof and circumstances would not arrive later on, meaning, if at a
later point, if it is shown that Maneka Gandhi needs to travel abroad and
would need to express her rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (A) and (G),
but her passport is not made available to her, then she can claim infringement
of the aforementioned fundamental rights.

4. The order of the Passport Authorities is in violation of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India.

It needs to be observed that this argument is not a new and unique argument.
It has been dealt with in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v D.
Ramarathnam, Asst. Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi and
Ors.9.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India came to a decision, by majority

consensus that the expression “Personal Liberty” as used in Article 21 takes in
the right to travel abroad and under Article 21, no person can be deprived of
this right except according to a procedure established by law.

The parliament accepted this decision and then created the Passports Act,
1967 to right this wrong.

The claim of Maneka Gandhi is just the same, Article 21 guarantees her the
right to travel abroad, but due to the arbitrary and unfair implementation of
law through the Passport Act, 1967, she is not only being restrained, her right
is also being violated.

As we observed earlier, the Attorney for the government accepted the fact that
the actions of the Passport Authority had indeed been arbitrary, and because of
this oversight Maneka Gandhi was being allowed to present her case and her
side of the arguments, in the Supreme Court of India.

While the courts did accept that her fundamental rights under Article 21 were
violated and they did in fact expand the ambit of Article 21 by leaps and

9
1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
bounds, the court refrained from straight-forward commenting on this issue in
this particular case.

Conclusions

This case is considered as a landmark judgment because it gave a new

interpretation to the meaning of “Life and Personal Liberty” as mentioned
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the judgment expanded
the horizons of freedom of speech and expressions to a point where the right is
no longer restricted by the territorial and physical boundaries of the country.