Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978

'Personal Liberty' means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which is not authorised by law. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, famously known as Maneka Gandhi's case or Personal liberty case. This case is not only a landmark case for the interpretation of Article 21 of Constitution of India but it also gave an entirely new point of view to Chapter III of the Constitution of India.

Prior to this case decision, Article 21 guaranteed the Right to Life and Personal Liberty only against the arbitrary action of the executive and not from 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 altered the very face of the Indian Constitution and marked a new era of development in the concept of personal liberty. The decision stands as a beacon-light adding new dimensions to the interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport Act of 1967. 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 was requested to surrender her passport within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The petitioner immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi requesting him to furnish a copy of the statement of reason provided in section 10(5) of the Act. On 6-7-1977, the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs sent a Reply stating that the Government of India decided in the interest of the general public not to furnish her a copy of the statement of reason for making the order. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the supreme court of India under article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Government of India impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so.

1. Right to go abroad is a part of “personal Liberty” within the meaning of that expression as used in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and no one could be deprived of this except according to the procedure prescribed by law. 
2. Sec.10(3)(c) of the Passport Act of 1967 is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 14, 19(1)(a) and (g) and Art. 21 of the Constitution.
3. The impugned order is in contravention of the rules of natural justice and is therefore null and void.

The court said that section 10(3)(c) of Passport act, 1967 is void because it violates Article 14 of 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 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.

This immensely important judgement was delivered on 25th January 1978 and it altered the landscape of the Indian Constitution. This judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realised 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 Central Government never did disclose any reasons for impounding the petitioner's passport; rather she was told that the act was done in the interests of the general public whereas it was found out that her presence was felt required by the respondents for the proceedings before a commission of inquiry. The reason was given explicitly that it was not really necessarily done in the public interests and no ordinary person would understand the reasons for not disclosing this information or the grounds of her passport confiscation.

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 a test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, the ex-hypothesis 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.

It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of violation of any rights of an individual and when the State has violated it. But that does not mean, Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is exercisable only in India and not outside. Merely because the state's action is restricted to its territory, it does not mean that Fundamental Rights are also restricted in a similar manner. It is possible that certain rights related to human values are protected by fundamental rights even if it is not explicitly written in our Constitution. For example, Freedom of the press is covered under Article 19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned there.

The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free Speech and Expression as both have different natures and characters.

A.K Gopalan was overruled stating that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions. Earlier in Gopalan, the majority held that these provisions in themselves are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are not mutually exclusive and are dependent on each other.

• The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a new and highly varied interpretation of the meaning of 'life and personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of speech and expression to the effect that the right is no longer restricted by the territorial boundaries of the country.
• In fact, it extends to almost the entire world. Thus the case saw a high degree of judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of expanding horizons of fundamental rights in general, and Article 21 in particular. This case is called the Golden Triangle Case where article 14, 19 and 21 were challenged together and it was appreciated by the apex court.
• This decision restored the people's faith in the judicial system and guarantee that their fundamental rights will be protected. The court departed from its earlier position in the AK Gopalan case which held that the right to life and personal liberty can be restricted by the procedure established by law even if it is not fair and reasonable. 
• In this case, this regressive view was discarded by the court and held that that procedure established by law meant a procedure that eventually was reasonably fair and just.