- CJI M.H. BegFavored (Concurring)
- Justice Y.V. ChandrachudFavored (Concurring)
- Justice P.N. BhagwatiFavored (Leading Opinion)
- Justice V.R. Krishna IyerFavored (Concurring)
- Justice N.L. UntwaliaFavored (Concurring - with Bhagwati)
- Justice S. Murtaza Fazal AliFavored (Concurring)
- Justice P.S. KailasamFavored (Concurring)
- Constitution of India (Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21, 22, 32)
- Passports Act, 1967 (Section 10(3)(c))
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13)
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) (Effectively Overruled)
- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)
- R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (Bank Nationalisation Case) (1970)
This landmark case significantly expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, "in the public interest," without providing specific reasons.
She challenged this order, arguing it violated her rights under Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedoms, including speech and movement), and 21. The case forced the Supreme Court to reconsider its narrow interpretation of "procedure established by law" under Article 21, previously established in A.K. Gopalan.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Maneka Gandhi)
- Impounding the passport without providing reasons violated principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem - right to be heard), which is implicit in Article 21.
- The right to travel abroad is part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21 and also impacts freedoms under Article 19.
- "Procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be interpreted to mean a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, not just any procedure enacted by legislature.
- Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, allowing impounding without reasons in the public interest, conferred arbitrary power and violated Article 14.
- Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but form a 'golden triangle'; a law affecting personal liberty must satisfy the tests of all three.
Respondent's Case (Union of India)
- There is no specific fundamental right to travel abroad mentioned in the Constitution.
- "Procedure established by law" (Article 21) means a procedure prescribed by enacted law, following the A.K. Gopalan interpretation. Natural justice principles are not automatically implied.
- The Passports Act provides a valid procedure, and Section 10(3)(c) allows for withholding reasons in the sensitive domain of public interest.
- Impounding a passport restricts movement related to Article 21, not the freedoms under Article 19 which apply within India. Articles 19 and 21 are separate.
- The government offered a post-decisional hearing, fulfilling natural justice requirements.
Case Progression Timeline
Passport Impounded
Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, orders Maneka Gandhi to surrender her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, citing "public interest". No specific reasons given.
July 4, 1977Reasons Requested & Denied
Maneka Gandhi requests reasons for the impounding; government refuses, again citing "in the interest of the general public".
July 1977Writ Petition Filed
Maneka Gandhi files a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the order and the validity of Section 10(3)(c).
July 1977Hearing by 7-Judge Bench
The Constitution Bench hears extensive arguments on the scope of Article 21 and its relationship with Articles 14 and 19.
Late 1977 - Early 1978Judgment Delivered
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the petition (partly), holding that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, effectively overruling A.K. Gopalan.
January 25, 1978The Supreme Court unanimously delivered a transformative judgment. It decisively overruled the narrow interpretation of Article 21 from A.K. Gopalan. The Court held that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 does not mean any procedure enacted by the legislature, but a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable.
Furthermore, the Court established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21 (the 'golden triangle'), stating that any law depriving a person of life or personal liberty must not only prescribe a fair procedure (Article 21) but also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (reasonableness) and Article 14 (non-arbitrariness). The right to travel abroad was recognized as part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21. Although the Court did not strike down Section 10(3)(c) itself, it read the requirement of natural justice (including the right to be heard and know the reasons) into it. The government assured the Court it would provide a post-decisional hearing, based on which the Court disposed of the petition without quashing the order.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
Justice Bhagwati's leading opinion spearheaded a paradigm shift from procedural positivism to substantive due process (though not explicitly using the term). The Court infused Article 21 with principles of natural justice and reasonableness drawn from Articles 14 and 19. It rejected the mutual exclusivity doctrine of A.K. Gopalan, drawing on the reasoning from the *Bank Nationalisation Case* (R.C. Cooper). By holding that 'personal liberty' is a wide concept encompassing various rights (including travel abroad) and that any procedure restricting it must be fair, just, and reasonable, the Court vastly expanded the protective ambit of Article 21, making it a powerful source for protecting human dignity and fundamental freedoms against arbitrary state action, whether executive or legislative.
FINAL VERDICT
- The interpretation of Article 21 in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras was overruled.
- "Procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
- Principles of natural justice (like the right to be heard - audi alteram partem) are implicitly part of Article 21's procedural requirement.
- Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked ('golden triangle'); a law affecting life or personal liberty must satisfy the tests of all three.
- The right to travel abroad is included within 'personal liberty' under Article 21.
- Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, is valid but must be read down to imply the requirement of fairness, including giving reasons and a post-decisional hearing.
- The petition was disposed of based on the government's assurance to provide a hearing, without quashing the impounding order itself at that stage.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must satisfy the requirements of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. It must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Principles of natural justice are an integral part of this requirement. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; they overlap and must be read together. Any law depriving a person of life or personal liberty must adhere to the procedural safeguards implicit in Article 21 and also withstand scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19.