Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Why this case matters

Maneka Gandhi is where the Supreme Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together. Before it, “procedure established by law” in Article 21 could be read to mean any procedure a statute laid down. After it, the procedure itself has to be fair, just and reasonable. A seven-judge bench decided the case, and several judges wrote their own opinions, so each quotation below names its author.

The facts

Maneka Gandhi held a passport issued in June 1976. On 4 July 1977 she received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, saying the Government of India had decided to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 “in public interest”, and asking her to surrender it within seven days. She asked for the statement of reasons that Section 10(5) provides for. The Government replied that it had decided, “in the interest of the general public”, not to give her one. She challenged the impounding and the refusal to give reasons in a writ petition under Article 32.

The question before the Court

When the State takes away a person’s liberty, here the right to travel abroad, is it enough that some procedure is laid down by law, or must that procedure be fair, just and reasonable? And does such a law also have to meet Articles 14 and 19?

What the Court said

Chandrachud, J. put the core holding plainly:

But the mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot ever meet the mandate of article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.

Chandrachud, J. · [1978] 2 S.C.R. 658 · Open at this page

Bhagwati, J. tied Article 21 to Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrariness:

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the best [sic] of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Bhagwati, J. · [1978] 2 S.C.R. 674 · Open at this page

Beg, C.J. carried the same idea to executive action:

It appears to me that even executive authorities when taking administrative action which involves any deprivations of or restrictions on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or unfairness.

Beg, C.J. · [1978] 2 S.C.R. 657 · Open at this page

What the Court decided

The Attorney General told the Court that the Government would consider a representation from the petitioner and give her a hearing, and that any confirmed impounding would last no more than six months from that decision. In view of the majority view and that statement, the Court disposed of the writ petition without passing a formal order, and directed that the passport remain in the custody of its Registrar until further orders.

Why it still matters

The idea that a procedure under Article 21 must be “fair, just and reasonable” runs through Indian constitutional law today, from anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (1980) and Sushila Aggarwal (2020) to pension rights in D.S. Nakara (1982) and the bail directions in Satender Kumar Antil (2022). The case map below shows the earlier decisions the judges relied on and some of the later judgments that cite it.

How lawyers use it

• In writ petitions against an executive order that curtails liberty without a fair hearing.
• To argue that a procedure under any statute must satisfy Article 21, not just exist.
• To read Articles 14 and 21 together against arbitrary State action.