Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR (1978) SC 597.

Case Analysis of "Maneka Gandhi v. UOI" from an Administrative Law POV.

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (AIR 1978 Sc 597) Abharika Choudhuri (2183009, BA LLB, Section A – Sem 5)

2. FACTS Maneka Gandhi, a political leader, had her passport impounded by the government without any explanation or justification. Gandhi challenged the impounding order, arguing that it violated her fundamental rights, specifically the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The government claimed that the impounding was necessary in the interest of the general public and that they were not required to disclose reasons for their decision. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India. ISSUES Whether the impounding of her passport, without any reasons or opportunity to defend herself, violates her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution? Whether the government’s action was arbitrary and unfair, lacking any due process or adherence to established legal principles? Whether the impounding infringes upon other fundamental rights, such as the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of movement under Article 19?

3. CONTENTIONS MANEKA GANDHI Impounding her passport violated her fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21, as the “right to travel abroad” is an integral part of the right to personal liberty The action was arbitrary and unreasonable. The government's claim of “general public interest” was vague and unsubstantiated. She was denied the right to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. UNION OF INDIA The specific reasons could not be disclosed due to national security concerns, and thus, the government had discretionary powers in matters related to national security and public interest. The government was not required to provide reasons for its decision as long as it acted in good faith. The “right to travel abroad” was not explicitly mentioned in Article 21 and could be reasonably restricted. The legal framework already provided sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrary action .

4. HELD “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” under Article 21 includes the “right to travel abroad”. The impounding of the passport was without due process. The lack of substantial reasons for its actions by the government was arbitrary and amounted to an infringement of procedural fairness. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, which granted the government unfettered discretion to impound passports without any specific criteria or safeguards, was declared unconstitutional. RATIO DECIDENDI Right to Know and Right to Challenge – essential components of procedural fairness. Due Process – Fundamental Right State accountability and transparency Interconnectedness of various Fundamental Rights Link between Fundamental Rights and procedural fairness The ruling wrt the impugned section established the need for clear guidelines and procedures to ensure fair and transparent decision-making by the state.

5. RELEVANCE Due process and fair hearing: Administrative authorities must provide individuals with adequate notice of any action against them, disclose reasons for such action, and offer a meaningful opportunity to be heard before making a decision. Greater transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making . Procedural safeguards against arbitrary power: The court emphasized that the mere existence of a law does not automatically justify its application; it must also adhere to principles of fairness and natural justice . This has led to the development of various procedural safeguards in administrative law, such as the right to access information, the right to make representations, and the right to appeal decisions. Expansion of personal liberty: Administrative authorities must now demonstrate a more compelling justification for infringing upon these expanded notions of personal liberty. Post-decisional hearing: The concept of a post-decisional hearing was introduced in administrative law. This means that even after an administrative decision is made, if it is challenged for violating fundamental rights, the aggrieved party must be granted an opportunity to be heard . This ensures that even if procedural safeguards were not followed initially, there is still a mechanism for redressal and review .

6. THANK YOU!