Living in a world without access to clean water, a healthy environment, and essential sustenance would indeed be dystopian. Similarly, when interpreting the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, it must include not just survival but a life of dignity with access to basic necessities. This notion has been emphasized by the judiciary, notably in the landmark case of 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India' (1978). This ruling was pivotal in broadening the interpretation of Article 21, underscoring the connection between various rights, known as the golden triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The case addressed the expanded scope of Article 21, including related rights like the right to travel abroad and the distinctions between due process of law and procedure established by law. It also touched on principles of natural justice. The article further examines similar cases to 'Maneka Gandhi' and how this decision overruled previous principles set in 'AK Gopalan v. State of Madras' (1950).
Petitioner:
Maneka Gandhi
Respondent:
Union Of India And Other
Date Of Judgment:
January 25, 1978
Bench:
Before M.H. Beg, C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam.
BACKGROUND/FACTS OF THE CASE
In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, a journalist named Maneka Gandhi applied for a passport under the Indian Passport Act of 1967, which was issued to her on June 1, 1976. However, on July 4, 1977, she received a notice from the regional passport officer informing her that the government had decided to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act “in public interest.” Maneka Gandhi requested a statement of reasons for this decision as mandated by Section 10(5). The government responded on July 6, 1977, stating that they would not provide the reasons due to concerns for public interest. Gandhi then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the impounding of her passport and the refusal to disclose the reasons violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1).
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or conditional and what is the extent of the territory of such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution of India?
2. Whether 'Right to Travel Abroad' is protected under the umbrella of Article 21.
3. What is the Connection between the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
4. Determining the scope of " Procedure established by Law"
5. Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 is violative of Fundamental Rights and if it is whether such legislation is a concrete Law?
6. Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport Officer is in contravention of principles of natural justice?
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER
- The ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is derived from ‘personal liberty,’ and no citizen can be deprived of it except by legal procedures. The Passports Act, 1967 lacks specific procedures for confiscating or revoking passports, rendering such actions unreasonable and arbitrary.
- The Central Government violated Article 21 of the Constitution by not allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. This necessitates a clear interpretation of Article 21 and its protection, ensuring that legal procedures are non-arbitrary and adhere to principles of natural justice.
- Fundamental Rights should be read in conjunction, including Articles 14, 19, and 21, to uphold the Constitution's spirit and provide comprehensive protection against state exploitation.
- While Article 19 provides for reasonable restrictions on freedoms to maintain order, the restrictions in this case were not applicable. Article 22 protects against wrongful detention, and the government’s action of confiscating the petitioner’s passport without explanation amounted to illegal detention.
- The term “personal liberty” in Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. includes all rights related to personal liberty, underscoring the importance of the principle “Audi Alteram Partem,” which requires giving individuals a chance to be heard.
- The Passports Act of 1967 violates the ‘Right to Life and Liberty’ and is deemed ultra vires due to its provisions in Section 10(3)(c) restricting the petitioner’s international travel.
- Judicial review is crucial in examining the legality of administrative actions and laws, including the impoundment of the petitioner’s passport. The judiciary must assess whether such actions are constitutional.
- International Human Rights Law recognizes the right to free movement, and domestic laws should align with global standards. The petitioner argued that restricting international travel violates international legal norms and emphasized the need for such alignment.
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT
- The Attorney General of India argued that the 'Right to Travel Abroad' is not covered under Article 19(1), so Article 19 is not bound by the reasonableness of actions taken by the Central Government.
- The Passports Act was not intended to infringe upon fundamental rights, and the government should not be required to justify the seizure or impounding of passports for public safety and national security reasons.
- The petitioner’s passport was impounded because she needed to appear before an inquiry committee.
- The respondent referred to the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, stating that the term "law" in Article 21 does not need to align with fundamental principles of natural justice.
- The principles of natural justice are seen as vague, and such ambiguous provisions should not be included in the Constitution.
- Article 21 is broad and includes the provisions of Articles 14 and 19, but a law is unconstitutional under Article 21 only if it directly violates Articles 14 and 19. Therefore, the passport law is not unconstitutional.
- The "procedure established by law" in Article 21 does not need to be reasonable.
- The respondent argued that impounding the petitioner’s passport was necessary for national security and public order, as it is the government's duty to safeguard its interests.
- The Constitution reflects a preference for "procedure established by law" over the American "due process of law," indicating the framers’ intent to avoid due process requirements.
- The decision to impound passports was justified as it was an exercise of executive discretion necessary in the face of escalating security concerns.
JUDGEMENT
The court transformed our understanding of the Constitution by clarifying that Article 21, which references "process established by law," requires such processes to be neither arbitrary nor irrational. The framers of the Constitution intended that these processes be fair and equitable to all individuals.
In a significant development, the court overturned the earlier Gopalan case, establishing that Articles 19, 14, and 21 are interlinked. This means that any law must comply with the standards set by these constitutional provisions. Article 21, which protects the right to personal liberty, should be interpreted in a broad and inclusive manner, rather than in a restrictive or narrow sense.
Additionally, the court affirmed that Article 21 encompasses the right to travel abroad, as demonstrated in the Satwant Singh case. It emphasized that administrative orders issued under Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) can be contested if they are found to be unreasonable, contemptuous, or in violation of natural justice, or if they exceed the authority granted to them.
CONCLUSION
The case is regarded as a landmark decision because it provided a novel and broad interpretation of ‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, it expanded the scope of freedom of speech and expression beyond national borders, extending it globally. The case exemplified a high level of judicial activism and marked the beginning of a new era in which fundamental rights, especially Article 21, were significantly broadened. Referred to as the "golden triangle case," it involved challenges to Articles 14, 19, and 21, and received praise from the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment