MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA PETITIONER: MANEKA GANDHI VS. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA Equivalent Citation-AIR 1978 SC 597 FACTS
The petitioner was issued a passport on June 1,1976 under the Passport Act,1967 On the 4th of July,the petitioner received a letter dated 2 nd July,1977,from the Regional Passport Officer Delhi intimating her that it was decided by the government of india to
impound her passport under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act “in the public interest”. The petitioner was required to surrender her passport within 7 days from the receipt of
that letter. The petitioner immediately addressed a letter to the Regional Passport Officer requesting him to furnish her a copy of the statement of reasons for making the order as provided in
sec.10(5) A reply was sent to her by the government of india,ministry of external affairs on 6 th july 1977 stating inter alia that the government decided “in the interest of the general public”
not to furnish her copy of the statement of reasons dfor the making of the order. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition challenging action of the government of impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so.
CASE ANALAYSIS1
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SET THE STAGE FOR THE
MANEKA GANDHI
JUDGEMENT The circumstances that set the stage for the judgement of MANEKA GANDHI judgement are important.In,the case of ADM JABALPUR v. SHIVKANT SHUKLA1,the supreme court had unhappily held that a detenu could not file a habeas corpus petition2 challenging the legality of his detention during an emergency.A large segment of citizens had lost faith in the judiciary.Due to the enactment of several constitutional amendments which severly impinged on a persons fundamental rights the indian democratic structure had faced an onslaught.The people felt betrayed bytheir elected representative and abandoned by the highest court of land. With its decision in MANEKA GANDHI,the supreme court attempted to restore the citizens faith in judiciary.The case marked the beginning of a golden era of human rights jurisprudence in India-a period in which the Supreme Court transferred itself into an ‘institutional ombudsman of human rights’3
SUPREME COURT DIFFERING APPROACH
FOR
FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS The impact and importance of the MANEKA GANDHI judgement is due to the fact that before this case the supreme court in many cases failed to interpret several constitutional provisions especially fundamental rights which it was not supposed to do.In this case,the supreme court highlighted the importance of fundamental rights .In this case the Supreme court agreed that the fundamental right conferred upon the plaintiff under Art.21 has been infringed. In Maneka Gandhi case the word ‘Deprivation’ was re-interpreted by the Supreme Court contrary to that as in A.K.GOPALAN case (i.e total deprivation).Court even considered partial deprivation of right to move as the infringement of the Art.21 of the constitution. 1 AIR 1978 SC 597 2 A petition filed under Art.32 of the constitution seeking the release of a person from the unlawful custody of state. 3 Fali Nariman,The “Doctrine” versus “Majoritism” in The Supreme Court versus the constitution:A Challenge to Federalism,ed.Pran Chopra (New Delhi:Sage Publications,2006),p.64 2
Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi case stated that“A right which is not provided in Part III of the constitution will come under the ambi of Art.21”. Amongst the fundamental rights,Art.14,19 and 21 of the constitution composes the ‘golden triangle’4 have been invoked most often to declare the legislationor arbitrary state action invalid.
BREATHING LIFE INTO PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION The Supreme Court judgement in the Maneka Gandhi is one that went out of bounds with reference to the facts before the court.The matter concerned ,on the face of it,the impounding of an individuals passport.The Attorney General had undertaken that Maneka Gandhi would be provided a post-decisional hearing.Moreover,even if the government decided to stand by its impounding order after hearing Maneka Gandhi ,it had conceded that the period of impounding would not exceed six months from the date of its fresh order.Instead of deciding the case on this finite ground, the court chose to consider several peripheral issues-yes,these issues were pivotal to indias governance,but peripheral to the case-in judgements that together added upto several thousand words. Why did the Supreme Court say more than that needed to be said?The immediate cause of the courts expansive,rights-based approach in Maneka Gandhi was the criticism it faced for its decision during the Emergency in ADM Jabalpur.In fact,Maneka Gandhi was followed by a series of actions undertaken by the court and its judges to distance themselves from ADM Jabalpur-this was akin to an acknowledgement that it had ‘violated the fundamental rights of a large number of people’ thirty-four years after the case was decided. And,yet,though the Supreme Court embarked on an inquiry not necessitated by the facts before it in Maneka Gandhi, when we look at it from a result-oriented approach,the courts interpretation of Articles 14,19 and 21 played a hugely beneficial role in shaping India’s constitutional policy. In Maneka Gandhi case the supreme court held that the fundamental rights form an integrated scheme under the constitution.The court stated: 4 Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) 3
Articles dealing with different fundamental rights contained in Part III of the constitution do not represent entirely separate streams of rights which do not mingle at many points.They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the constitution.Their waters must mix to constitute that grand flow of unimpeded and impartial justice.Isolation of various aspects of human freedom,for purposes of their protection,is neither realistic nor beneficial. In Maneka Gandhi case, the judiciary took upon itself the task of infusing into the constitutional provisions the spirit of social justice.Emphasising the need to read Part III of the Constitution in a holistic manner, the Supreme Court said that the mere fact that a law satisfied the requirements of one fundamental right did not exempt it from the operation of other fundamental rights. What this means is that even if a law were ostensibly associated with a particular fundamental right and complied with its requirements, it would also have to satisfy the requirements of other fundamental rights. The majority on the seven-judge bench stated that any procedure established by law under Article 215 of the constitution would have to be “fair, just and reasonable” and could not be “fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. If these standards were applied, the government’s order to impound her passport passed without providing a hearing nor furnishing any reasons to Maneka Gandhi failed to satisfy the mandate of Article 21. The court held that the right to travel abroad fell within the sweep of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.The court also found that the government order was arbitrary and violated the right to equality under Article 14. Inspite of its emphatic observation,the court did not pass any ‘formal order’ in the case and accepted the governments assurance that Maneka Gandhi would get an adequate opportunity to be heard.The majority upheld the impounding of Maneka Gandhi passport and held that her passport should remain in the courts custody in the meantime.Justice Beg,who was otherwise part of the majority,did opine that the government order was ‘neither fair nor procedurally proper’ and deserved to be quashed by the court.
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
5 Right to life and personal liberty. 4
The question that the supreme court sought to answer in Maneka Gandhi was ‘Does a law that satisfies all procedural requirements in its enactment,however arbitrary or unreasonable,meet the test of Article 21’. The seminal importance of the Maneka Gandhi decision was that the court transformed itself from being merley a supervisor, to being the watchdog of the constitution.The courts judgement in Maneka Gandhi was based on simple premise that an arbitrary law is no law.The supreme court judgement in Maneka Gandhi effectively meant that ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the expression ‘Due process’.According the supreme court decision Article 21 should be interpreted as ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to fair,just,and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It signifies the courts changing approach towards the constitution.Through the judgement of this case the substantive due process and,more broadly stated,the courts power to review the content of legislation to ascertain if the mandate of Article 21 had been met,eventually found its way to India.
AN ALTERED CONSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE It is the constitutional developments after Maneka Gandhi that highlight how it was one of the cases that truly changed India.It was a turning point in the supreme courts interpretation of Article 21.The court moved from a pedantic to a purposive approach in construing the sweep of the right to life under the constitution.The judgement became a springboard for the evaluation of the law relating to judicial preservation of human rights.The most striking aspect of the supreme court introduction of substantive due process was that it empowered courts to expand the limited phraseology of the right to life under the constitution of India ,to include a wide range of unenumerated rights6.It was only through the judgement of Maneka Gandhi case that the following rights were included within the ambit of the right to life and personal liberty7.
6 Zia Mody ’10 Judgements That Changed India’ p.44 7 Art.21 of the constitution 5
Right Of Prisoners including protection from handcuffing without adequate handcuffing,access to a transcript of the judgement and facilities to exercise his rights to appeal against his conviction,the right to treatment with dignity and humanity,the right of an undertrial to be released from custody if the police fail to file a chargesheet within the period prescribed, protection from custodial violence and protected against public hanging. Environmental Rights including the right to a humane and healthy environment, the right to sustainable development,protection from pollution hazards due to use of pesticides and the right to live without undue affection of air,water and the environment. Other Rights including the right to live with human dignity,including access to nutrition,clothing,and shelter,the right to free education of children up to the age of fourteen years,the right to livelihood, protection of ones reputation, access to just and humane conditions of work,protection of the health and strength of workers and maternity relief.8
CONCLUSION Although the Maneka Gandhi judgement permanently clipped the wings of legislature, it faced little or no hostility from any of the branches of the government,unlike other judgements in the same period. 8 Ref. from Zia Mody ’10 Judgements That Changed India’p.45 6
In over three decades since the judgement ,the right to life and personal liberty under Art.21 has gradually become a repository of human rights and fundamental freedoms in India. With the advent of the jurisprudence developed by the honourable Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case, now the purview of article 21 has increased many folds. The ambit now incorporates by the virtue Munn v Illinois9, is not merely the right to mere animal existence but also basic tenets of human life. Making life a much more wider term than it was earlier as per the Article 21 of the constitution. Now its much more convenient to ascertain the rights against any denial of the right to life and personal liberty.Therefore the importance of the judgement of Maneka Gandhi case cannot be ignored as it provided the direction for different interpretation of Part III of the constitution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES ARTICLES: 9 94 U.S. 113 (1877) 7
1
A
Rights
Landmark,
accessed
at
2
A
New
Beginning
To
Life
And
Personal
liberty,accessed
BOOKS; 1. Mody Zia ‘10 Judgements That Changed India’ 2. Basu DD, ‘Indian Constitution Law’
8
at
