Maneka Gandhi’s Case

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi is an activist for animal rights and an environmentalist. She is also honoured by many international and national awards. In 1995, maneka Gandhi was also appointed as the chairwoman of Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA). Maneka Gandhi’s case, also known as the Personal liberty case, is one of the most important cases in the legal Indian legal history. The scope of article 21 of the constitution, which provides the right to life, widened after this case.” watchdog of democracy” was the name allotted to the court after this case.

Now let’s consider some of the Maneka Gandhi Case facts. 

Maneka Gandhi Case facts

● According to the Passport Act of 1967, maneka gandhi’s passport was issued on 1st June 1976. On 2nd July 1977, she got an order from the Regional Passport Office of New Delhi to surrender her passport. Also, she was not given any appropriate reason for this order from the external affairs ministry

● Maneka Gandhi then approached the supreme court by invoking its writ jurisdiction. She contended that the decision to surrender her passport was a direct attack on her right to physical liberty, according to article 21. It is pertinent to note that the Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam of the supreme court held that the right to travel is under the AmbitAmbit of Article 21, although the right that the extent to which the passport Act diluted was unclear

Issues Before the Court 

Let’s now consider some of the Issues Before the Court :

● Are the provisions or acts of Articles 21,14, and 19 related? Are they mutually exclusive? 

● Does article 21 contain the right to travel or not?

● Is the decision of the legislative law that snatches away the right to life reasonable? 

● Should the procedure laid down by the Passport Act of 1967 be checked for reasonability? 

Arguments by the petitioner

● The decision to seize the passport on 4th July 1977 had infringed the petitioner maneka gandhi’s right to life and personal liberty, travel, freedom, and freedom of speech.

● The provision of articles 21,14 and 19 are not related and aren’t mutually exclusive to each other. They need to be studied together. Only an accumulative reading and appropriate interpretation will lead to observance of natural justice.

● The American concept of the “due process of law” was not adopted by India. However, the procedure established must be fair and safe. Also, they should not be arbitrary.

● Under Section 10(3)(c), the Passport Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the right to life & personal liberty given in article 21.

● The opportunity of being heard, i.e., Audi Alteram Partem, is acknowledged as a significant component of the principles of natural justice.

Contention of Respondent

● The respondent stated that the decision to surrender the petitioner’s passport was that the petitioner had to attend the government committee for a hearing

● The respondent stated that under article 21, the term “law” couldn’t be understood as given

in the principles of national justice, emphasising the A K Gopalan case principle

● The respondent said that article 21 contains the phrase” procedure established by law “and said that such a procedure does not need to pass the test of reasonability and should not be under articles 14 and 19

● There happened a long debate among the framers of our constitution on the American “due process of law” versus the British “procedure established by law”. Also, the absence of American”due process of law” in the provisions of the Indian constitution indicated the intentions of the constitution-makers

Maneka Gandhi Case Judgement

 The judgement of the Menka Gandhi case was done on 25th January 1978. This case Altered the Indian constitution. The judgement widened the scope of article 21 and made the constitution-makers realise the goal of making India a welfare state. A 7-judge bench passed this important judgement on Indian legal history.

Conclusion

 The judgement of Maneka Gandhi’s case widened the scope of article 21 and personal liberty and preserved the fundamental right to life. This judgement interlinked the provisions of articles 19,14, and 21 .through this link, the provisions of articles 19,14 and 21 became inseparable and into a single entity. Now, it has become necessary for every procedure to meet all the requirements of all these three articles. The judgement also brought more rights under the Ambit of article 21, like the right to clean water, standard education, freedom from noise, etc.