Taking a Step Backward to the Background
The controversy around this case began with the enactment of the Passport Act, 1967. The law was introduced after the decision in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, where the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad could not be curtailed without a “procedure established by law,” since this right flowed from the guarantee of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.¹
Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was granted a passport on June 1, 1976, under the provisions of the Act. However, on July 2, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, acting under section 10(3)(c) of the Act, issued a notice requiring her to surrender her passport within seven days.
Maneka promptly requested the statement of reasons for such action as allowed under section 10(5). The Ministry of External Affairs declined this request, citing “public interest” as justification for not disclosing the reasons.²
Feeling that her constitutional rights were being violated, Maneka Gandhi approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Her petition questioned the constitutionality of the action taken against her, as well as the legality of section 10(3)(c) itself.
This case soon became a defining moment in Indian constitutional law, revisiting unresolved questions from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, especially the scope of “procedure established by law.”³
Issues Decided in the Instant Case
The major issues that were delved into in length of arguments are laid out in the following points:
a) Whether the fundamental rights in Part III are absolute or subject to limitations, and what boundaries restrict their exercise?
b) Whether the right to travel abroad is subsumed under the guarantee of “personal liberty” in Article 21?
c) Whether Articles 14, 19, and 21 are mutually exclusive or interlinked in their operation?
d) What is the true meaning and scope of the expression “procedure established by law” under Article 21?
e) Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, infringes constitutional guarantees of Articles 14 and 21, and if so, whether such a legislative provision can survive judicial scrutiny?
f) Whether the impugned order of the Regional Passport Officer violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard?
Arguments Given by Both Sides
I. Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the impounding of her passport without disclosing reasons was a direct assault on her fundamental rights. It was contended that the action not only violated the right to personal liberty under Article 21 but also impinged on Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement). The right to travel abroad, she claimed, was intrinsic to the constitutional guarantee of liberty.⁴
Her counsel further emphasised that Articles 14, 19, and 21 should not be read in isolation. Rather, they are complementary provisions that must be interpreted harmoniously. The essence of constitutionalism and justice lies in a combined reading of these rights, which together prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness.⁵
It was also argued that even if India did not explicitly adopt the American doctrine of “due process of law,” the constitutional phrase “procedure established by law” must still require that such procedure be just, fair, and reasonable. A law that is arbitrary or oppressive cannot be called a law under Article 21.⁶
The petitioner invoked the principle of audi alteram partem, which is also called the right to be heard, taken as a fundamental element of natural justice. Denial of reasons and opportunity to defend herself was portrayed as an attack on this universally recognised principle.⁷
II. Arguments of the Respondent
The State defended the seizure by asserting that Maneka Gandhi was required to appear before a government committee, and impounding her passport was necessary for that purpose. The government argued that Article 21 should be interpreted literally, in line with the precedent set in A.K. Gopalan.
According to them, as long as there was a law prescribing a procedure, its fairness could not be examined by the Court.⁸
They stressed that the Constituent Assembly had deliberately chosen “procedure established by law” over “due process of law” after long debate. This omission reflected the framers’ intention to exclude judicial review of the reasonableness of the law. Therefore, the respondents contended that the Court should not import notions of fairness and natural justice into Article 21.⁹
Judgement of the Court
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on January 25, 1978. The Court held that section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it conferred unguided and arbitrary power to the executive without ensuring safeguards of natural justice.¹⁰
The Court declared that the procedure under Article 21 must not only be prescribed by law but must also meet the standards of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. Arbitrary or oppressive procedures cannot be considered valid “law.” This marked a decisive departure from the narrow view in A.K. Gopalan and aligned with Justice Fazl Ali’s dissent in that earlier case.¹¹
It also affirmed that the right to travel abroad was a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, building upon the earlier recognition in Satwant Singh Sawhney.
The Court underscored that denial of a passport without affording reasons or an opportunity to be heard was contrary to both Article 21 and Article 14.¹²
Although the Court did not direct immediate return of Maneka Gandhi’s passport, it categorically reshaped the meaning of personal liberty. By linking Articles 14, 19, and 21 together in what became known as the “golden triangle,” the Court held that any law curtailing personal liberty must simultaneously withstand scrutiny under equality and freedom provisions.¹³
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio of this case is clear: any law that seeks to deprive a person of personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. It must satisfy the tests of non-arbitrariness under Article 14, compatibility with freedoms under Article 19, and substantive fairness under Article 21.
“Procedure established by law” cannot mean any enacted procedure, but one that conforms to constitutional values of justice.¹⁴
Legal Principle
- From Maneka Gandhi emerge critical principles:
- The integration of Articles 14, 19, and 21 into a coherent framework safeguarding liberty.
- The expansion of Article 21 to include rights such as the freedom to travel abroad.
- The insistence that executive action be tempered by principles of natural justice.
- The recognition of substantive due process in Indian law.¹⁵
RELEVENCE
The relevance of Maneka Gandhi remains profound even today. It laid the foundation for later rulings on the right to privacy, the right to a clean environment, and the right to livelihood.
Modern cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India on privacy directly invoked its principles.¹⁶ Scholars describe Maneka as the turning point when the Supreme Court transformed from being a formal interpreter of the Constitution to its active guardian.¹⁷
Criticism persists, particularly that judicial subjectivity has been widened under the “fair and just” standard, potentially straining the balance of powers. Yet, the consensus remains that Maneka Gandhi ushered in a constitutional culture that prioritises fairness and liberty over rigid formalism.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
