Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

 

Case name: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Citation: (1978) 1 SCC 248; AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 2 SCR 621​

Date of judgment: 25 January 1978​

Bench / Judges: M. Hameedullah Beg, C.J., and Y. V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati, V. R. Krishna Iyer, N. L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali and P. S. Kailasam, JJ. (leading judgment by Bhagwati, J.; concurring opinions by others)​

 

Facts

Maneka Gandhi was issued an Indian passport on 1 June 1976 under the Passports Act, 1967. On 2 July 1977, the Regional Passport Officer informed her that the Government of India had decided to impound her passport under section 10(3)(c) “in public interest” and required her to surrender it within seven days. When she asked for the reasons under section 10(5), the Government replied that, “in the interest of the general public,” the statement of reasons would not be furnished. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5), the impounding order, and the denial of reasons, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 and breach of natural justice.​

 

Judgment / Holding

The Court held that the “right to travel abroad” is part of “personal liberty” under Article 21, so deprivation of that right must follow a law which prescribes a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Overruling the earlier “watertight compartment” view in A. K. Gopalan, it held that laws affecting personal liberty must also satisfy Articles 14 and 19: Article 21’s “procedure established by law” is controlled by the requirements of non‑arbitrariness and reasonableness. Section 10(3)(c) and section 10(5) were upheld on a constitution‑conforming interpretation: power to impound must be exercised on relevant grounds, with an opportunity of hearing (pre‑ or promptly post‑decisional), and reasons must normally be disclosed, refusal being justified only in rare cases where disclosure itself would harm interests expressly protected in the statute. In Maneka Gandhi’s specific case, the Court found denial of reasons and absence of hearing inconsistent with fair procedure and quashed the impounding order, but, in view of an undertaking given by the Attorney General to provide a hearing and reconsider, disposed of the petition without a formal writ, directing that the passport remain with the Court pending governmental reconsideration.​

 

Key observations

• The Court gave Article 21 a wide meaning: “personal liberty” is of the “widest amplitude” and includes a range of rights (like the right to travel abroad), some separately protected in Article 19; Articles 14, 19 and 21 form an integrated scheme, and any law depriving liberty must be “right, just and fair,” and non‑arbitrary.​
• It rejected the “direct object” test of Gopalan and adopted the “direct and inevitable effect” / “intended and real effect” doctrine (building on R. C. Cooper and Bennett Coleman), holding that State action must be tested for its real impact on fundamental rights rather than its form or ostensible purpose.​
• The Court also held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g), are not geographically confined to India; State action within India that prevents expression or professional activity abroad can still violate these rights.​

 

Obiter dicta

• The judgment elaborates that Articles 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; in “unoccupied” areas of personal liberty outside Article 22, both substantive and procedural law must satisfy Articles 14 and 19, not only the bare text of Article 21.​
• It affirms that principles of natural justice apply not only to quasi‑judicial but also to administrative actions affecting rights: even where statutes are silent, a duty to act fairly and give a reasonable opportunity to be heard will normally be implied, subject only to exceptional situations of genuine urgency where a prompt post‑decisional hearing may suffice.​
• Multiple opinions warn against broad, unguided executive discretions in matters like passports, emphasising transparency, recorded reasons, and judicial review as safeguards against arbitrary or politically motivated restrictions on movement, expression and profession.​