Blackmailing is serious offence

Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978

Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India- The case is very important landmark judgment passed by the Hon’ble bench of M. Hameeddullah, Y.V Chandrachud, Bhagwati, Krishnaiyer etc. it was observed that FR remarked the basic values cherished by the people of India and they prevent to harm or get exploited by others. it saves the dignity of individual and help people to develop his personality to the fullest extent.

Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978

Introduction and Facts

“right to travel abroad is well within the ambit in Article 21

Case- Satwant Singh

Therefore, Parliament has enacted Passport Act 1967 (PA Act), it empowers the authorities to impound the passport of certain person if such action is justified or necessary in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, Friendly relations of India with any other country, the security of India, or general Public.

In the immediate case the authorities on July fourth 1977 issued a notice of impounding of the passport of Petitioner UN agency was a famed journalist citing reasons as within the interest of the general public. As before long because the petitioner got the notice of such impound she reverted back to the authorities inquiring for specific elaborated reasons on why her passport shall be impounded.

The authorities answered that the explanations aren’t to be laid out in the interest of the overall public. Therefore, the petitioner approached Supreme Court u/a thirty two for the social control of elementary Right mentioned u/a fourteen against the capricious action of the authorities. The petition was more amended and social control of Article twenty one

Protection of Life & Personal Liberty, Article 19(1)(a) i.e. Right to freedom of speech & Article 19(1)(g) i.e. Right to freedom of Movement. Among the foremost reasons contended for the filing of such petition, the petitioner contended that the impugned order is void because it took away the petitioner’s right to a good hearing to give her defense.

Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978-

This case directly brought into question the lawfulness and validity of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[4]. in this case it had been argued by the petitioner that whether or not the validity of any law shall be set by the actual fact that it’s a procedure established by law or the law alongside being established by law shall conjointly change to principles of natural justice.

The main discussion was round the scope of the word “procedure established by law” on the purpose which will such procedure be capricious or unreasonable or ought to it perpetually be simply, cheap and truthful. the bulk bench but rejecting all the arguments of the petitioner command that the word law u/a twenty one doesn’t essentially be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.

However it had been Justice Fazal Ali’s opinion within the case that made-up the approach for a liberal approach to the interpretation of Art.-21. Justice Fazal Ali dissented with the bulk by holding that the correct life Under Article – twenty one will represent Principles of Natural Justice and also the courts ought to make sure any procedure established by law don’t suffer with the matter of unreasonableness & capriciousness. The spirit of Justice Fazal Ali’s argument was that the procedure ought to be simple, truthful and cheap.

while in the case of Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978, The court in Maneka Gandhi adopted the dissident read of Justice Fazal Ali during AK. Gopalan v. State of Madras. Therefore, the court commands that whereas the procedure established by law ought to be cheap, simple and truthful it shall be free from any unreasonableness and capriciousness.

Issues – Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978
  • whether any nexus b/w the provision mentioned U/A- 14, 19 and 21 or not ?
  • What is the scope of Procedure Established by law ?
  • Whether right to travel across abroad or nation resides in Art-21 or not ?
  • whether a legislative law that takes away right to life is reasonable or not ?

The judgment passed in the Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978 is the greatest feature and balanced judgment in the history of Supreme Court of India which interlinked the Article 14, 19, and 21.  It expanded the scope of personal liberty exponentially and protected the Indian Constitution and FR to life a great extent.

the passed judgment saved the citizens from the law made by parliament without questions when it did  not strike down S-10(3)(c) & 10(5) of the PA Act 1967. The Hon’ble court also reminded the authorities to only rarely use the prerogative of section 10(5) of the act so as to satisfy that their actions were rational and well thought. The court held that the sections is an administrative order hence, open to challenge on the grounds of unreasonable , mala fide, denial of natural justice and ultra vires.

the  judgement has much importance can be seen today also because the way in which the bench finds the Article 21 and expanded its horizons has given way for the resolving of problems left unsolved bu the parliament. It’s evident that this summary of judgment has played an unbeatable role in construing Right to clean Water; right to clean air; right to freedom from noise pollution, right to medical care, speedy trail, standard education, legal aid, fair trial, right to livelihood, right to clean environment, right to food etc., as a part of of right to life and Personal liberty which is mentioned in Article 21.


Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978

also read

Arnesh Kumar V State Of Bihar (2014) 8 Scc 273

Quick revision IPC-1860



Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India – Case Summary – Law Times Journal

[1]Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam,(1967) 3 S.C.R. 525.

[2]Passport Act, 1967 s. 10(3)(c).

[3]Passport Act, 1967 s. 10(5).

[4]A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras,A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27.

[5]M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 353.

[6]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India &Ors., 1988 A.I.R. 1115, 1988 S.C.R. (2) 530.

[7]In Re: Noise Pollution (2005)5 S.C.C. 733.

Maneka Gandhi V/S Union of India 1978

Ask Akash

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *