Skip to main content

Case Analysis of Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978) by Mayurakshi Sarkar

 Case Analysis of Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978)


Mayurakshi Sarkar


Facts

Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner who was a journalist, her passport was

issued on June 1 1976. However, in the year 1977, the passport authority

issued a letter to the petitioner to surrender her passport under section

10(3)(c) of the Passport act 1967 a week after receiving the letter. After

receiving the letter, the petitioner responded by asking the authorities for

specific reasons behind this order, but the authorities responded by saying

that in its “interest of sovereignty and integrity of the state” and

petitioner’s passport was revoked. Then, the petitioner filed a writ petition

under Article 32 in the Supreme court for violation of fundamental rights

under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian constitution. She stated that the

order of revoking her passport was void as she was not given the

opportunity of being heard in her defence.

Issues before the Court:

1. Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 are anyway

connected or they are mutually exclusive?

2. Whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 a violation of

Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the power of passport authority to impound or revoke any

individual’s passport arbitrary?

4. Is “Right to travel abroad” included in Article 21 of the constitution?

5. What is the scope of “procedure established by law” given in Article

21 of the constitution?

6. Whether the word ”law” in Article 21 of the constitution can also be

read as rules of natural justice?


Judgement by the Court

1. The court gave the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 a wide

interpretation. Personal liberty includes a variety of rights “which go

to continue the personal liberty of man”. Personal liberty cannot be

read in a narrow restricted sense. The right to travel abroad is also

included in Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

2. The court rejected the plea of the petitioner that Section 10(3)(c) of

the Passport Act 1967 is a violation of article 14, 19, 21 of the Indian

constitution as impounding an individual’s passport on grounds of ”

interest of sovereignty and integrity of the state” is not at all vague

and wrong.

3. The court stated that Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution

are not at all mutually exclusive. There is a unique relation or nexus

established between these articles. Any law prescribing a procedure

to deprive an individual’s liberty and life has to comply with all the

requirements of Article 19. Similarly, any procedure of law

established in Article 19 has to meet up the requirements of Article

14. Justice Krishna Iyer said “No article in constitution pertaining to

Fundamental right is an island” He gave an example that “a man is

not dissectible into separate limbs, cardinal rights in an organic

constitution have a synthesis”.

4. The court said that the “law” in Article 21 does not only mean

enacted law but also refers to rules and principles of natural justice.

5. The court overruled its judgement in the Ak Gopalan case and

reinterpreted the expression “procedure established by law” used in

Article 21. Any law prescribed under ” procedure established by law”

should be fair and reasonable. According to Justice Bhagwati ” The

procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable”. Any

procedure which is not right or fair and is arbitrary does not meet the

requirements of Article 21 of the constitution and is no procedure.


Analysis of the Judgement

This Judgement by the Supreme court sets a benchmark for all coming

generations. Unlike in the Ak Gopalan case, this time the court gave a quite

liberal and progressive interpretation of fundamental rights, mainly Article

21 of the Indian Constitution. Widening the scope of ” procedure

established by law” was most appreciated as it provided the citizens'

protection against any arbitrary laws. After this judgement, there was no

difference between ” procedure established by law” in the Indian

Constitution and “due process of law” used in the American constitution.

This judgment also helped to secure the fundamental rights of citizens

provided in the constitution. The court gave Article 21 of the Indian

constitution an expansive interpretation. Justice Krishna Iyer said, ” The

spirit of a man is the root of Article 21. Personal liberty makes for the

worth of the human person”. Over the years, Article 21 has become the

most essential right of citizens provided by the Indian constitution. The

“Golden Triangle Test” was introduced by the court that any law which is

depriving a person’s liberty must not only answer Article 21 but meet also

the requirements of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Indian constitution.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more