Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Facts

The petitioner's passport was impounded by the Government 'in the public interest' under the Passport Act, 1967 without furnishing reasons and without affording her a hearing. She challenged the order as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Issues

• Whether the order impounding the passport without a hearing was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
• Whether a law/procedure affecting personal liberty must satisfy the reasonableness mandate of Article 14 and the inter-relationship of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Arguments

Maneka Gandhi argued that arbitrary, unreasoned impounding without a hearing violated natural justice and the equality and liberty guarantees. The Union argued the Act conferred the power and that audi alteram partem could be excluded by public-interest considerations.

Held

The Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together as a connected scheme. Affirming Royappa, it held that the principle of reasonableness is an essential element of equality; arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, so any law or executive action depriving a person of liberty must lay down a procedure that is right, just and fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The audi alteram partem rule was read into the power, requiring an opportunity to be heard.

Ratio decidendi

Article 14 outlaws arbitrariness; therefore any State action or procedure touching fundamental rights must be reasonable, fair and just, and a 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must also pass the test of Article 14.

Significance

A landmark that cemented the arbitrariness/reasonableness reading of Article 14 and wove the three great rights into an integrated charter. It transformed Indian fundamental-rights jurisprudence and is consistently invoked to subject arbitrary executive and legislative action to constitutional scrutiny.

Related