Judgement - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Citation - AIR 1978 SC 597
Introduction
'Personal Liberty' means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not authorised by law. Prior to this case decision, Article 21[1] guaranteed the Right to Life and Personal Liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not the legislative action. This case just turned up pages and extended the protection against legislative actions.
This case is regarded as one of the best judgements delivered by the apex court as it was instrumental in restoring people's faith in the judiciary and constitutional values. It was in this case that the "Golden triangle" rule was firmly established by the SC and the court firmly cemented its seat as the watchdog of democracy. This decision, which was delivered by a 7-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25th January 1978, marked the development of a new era with respect to the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Facts of the case
The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport Act of 1967[2]. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that the State's act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right to Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam[3] held that the right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this particular right was unclear.
The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest of the general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution alleging that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.
Issues of the case
Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14, and 19 connected with each other or are they mutually exclusive?
Should the procedure established by law be tested for reasonability which in this case was the procedure laid down by the Passport Act of 1967?
Is the right to travel outside the country a part of Article 21 or not?
Is a legislative law that snatches away the right to life reasonable?
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioners stated that the State has infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights of freedom of speech & expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to travel abroad, and the right to freedom of movement. India might not have adopted the American concept of the "due process of law", nevertheless, the procedure established by law should be fair and just, reasonable, and not arbitrary. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the right to life & personal liberty guaranteed by this Article.
Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is invariably acknowledged as a vital component of the principles of natural justice. Even if these principles of natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of Fundamental Rights embodies the very crux of these principles.
On the other hand, the respondents stated that the passport was confiscated since the petitioner had to appear before a government committee for a hearing. The respondent asserted that the word 'law' under Article 21 couldn't be understood as reflected in the fundamental rules of natural justice, emphasising the principle laid down in the A K Gopalan case.[4]
Article 21 contains the phrase "procedure established by law" & such procedure does not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in consonance with Articles 14 & 19. The marked absence of the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers intentions.
Judgement
The court said that section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is void because it violates Article 14 of the Indian constitution because it confers vague and undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it doesn't provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm 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 deemed fit.
This judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realized the goal of making India a welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench. Before the enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and settle abroad. Also, the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing the passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.
Further, clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides that when the state finds it necessary to seize the passport or do any such action in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its security, its friendly relations with foreign countries, or for the interests of the general public, the authority is required to record in writing the reason of such act and on-demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of the passport.
The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not distinctive nor mutually exclusive." Any law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, ex-hypothesi must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be projected in the procedure. The phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure established by law" instead of due process of law which is said to have procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality. There is a clear infringement of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as unfair and unjust even when a statute is silent on it.
Analysis
After this case, the Supreme Court became the watchdog to protect the essence of the Constitution and safeguard the intention of the constitutional assembly that made it. The judges mandated that any law which deprives a person of his personal liberty should stand the test of Articles 21,14 as well as 19 of the Constitution. Also, principles of natural justice are sheltered under Article 21 and therefore no person is deprived of his voice to be heard inside the court. Further to declare any state action or legislation invalid, the "golden triangle".
This arbitrary act of impounding the passport eventually led to the pronouncement of a unanimous decision by a seven-judge bench of the apex court comprising M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam
This decision rendered void the plain and simple meaning of procedure established by law and introduced for the first time the concept of due process of law into the Indian constitution. The court also accepted that the Right to Travel Abroad is a very important component of the Right to Liberty, if this right is not granted, liberty is distorted. By this judgement, the court increased the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution and made it the duty to interpret Article 21 in a manner that serves the people's interest most.
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
[2] https://passportindia.gov.in/AppOnlineProject/pdf/PassportActEng.pdf
[3] 1967 AIR 1836, 1967 SCR (2) 525
[4]1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
