MENAKA GANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA

25/January/1978 AIR597

NAME – SAYAM ZARYAL

B.COM LLB
ROLL-A14
SECTION-L1404
REG-11410
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. JUDGES INVOLVED
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
4. ISSUES OF THE CASE
5. JUDGEMENT
6. RATIO DECIDENDI
7. OBITER DICTA
8. CASES REFERRED
9. CONCLUSION
 INTRODUCTION
This case is a landmark judgment case which played an the most significant role towards the
transformation of the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many
more fundamental rights from article 21
.
This case is always read and linked with A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case because this case
revolves around the concept of personal liberty which first came up for consideration in the A.K.
Gopalans case.
JUDGES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
This case was decided by a Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in 1978.
The judges involved in the case were.
1. M.H. Beg, C.J.
2. P.N. Bhagwati.
3. Y.V. Chandrachud.
4. V.R. Krishna Iyer.
5. N.L. Untwalia.
6. P.S. Kai asam.
7. S. Murtaza Fazal Ali.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The menaka Gandhi case arose in the period immediately following in the end of the national
emergency in india with the janta party government assuming power in 1977. Menaka Gandhi
daughter in law former prime minister Indra Gandhi and founder editor of a political magazine
surya was issued a passport in 1976 under the passport act. Soon after the congress party was
ousted by the janata party she began using surya as a political platform to restore the new
government. In 1977 around the time she wished to leave India to fulfill a speaking engagement,
that the menaka Gandhi received a letter stating a letter said that the government of india had
decided to impound her passport in public interst under passport act. The government turned
down her request seeking the reasons why the order has been passed in the interest of the general
public. In reaction she filed an writ petition in the supreme court challenging the passports
impounding order of the government of India and its subsequent refusal to provide reason for
same.
 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
 The petitioner was issued a passport on June 1, 1976 under the Passport Authority act
1967.
 On the 4th of July 1977 the petitioner received a letter dated 2nd July, 1977 from the
Regional Passport Officer Delhi intimating to her that it was decided by the
Government of India to impound her passport under S.10(3)(c) of the Act in public
interest.
 The petitioner was required to surrender her passport within 7 days from the receipt of
that letter.
 The petitioner immediately addressed a letter to the Regional Passport Officer
requesting him to furnish a copy of the statement of reasons for making the order as
provided in S.10(5).
 A reply was sent by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs on 6th July
1977.
 That the Government decided in the interest of the general public not to furnish her
copy of the statement of reasons for the making of the order.
 The petitioner there upon filed the present Writ Petition challenging action of the
Government in impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so.
 The position which obtained prior to the coming into force of the Act was that there was
no law regulating the issue of passports for leaving the shores of India and going abroad.
 The issue of passport was entirely within the unguided and unchannelled discretion of the
Executive.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The main issues of this case were as follows-
1. Whether right to go abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before depriving
a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
3. Whether section 10(3(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21of the
constitution.
4. Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of the
principle of natural justice.
JUDGEMNT OF TEH CASE
1.To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the passport
authority to impound a passport in the interest of the general public it is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.
2. Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing
to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.
3. Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe
procedure within the meaning of that article and the procedure practiced is worst.
4.Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be
imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be
imposed under articles 19(2) and 19(6).
5. A new doctrine of post decisional theory was evolved.

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the
three Articles 14, 19 and 21. This law which prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of
personal liberty has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 also.

It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in
the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence
of an enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be just, fair
and reasonable.
RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE
Ratio Decidendi is commonly defined as the reasons for the judgment. It basically refers to the
material part of the judgement without which the judge would have been unable to reach to the
present conclusion of the case.
Before stating the ratio of the case and the reasons for the same, let’s first look at the Section
10(3)(c) of the Passports Act 1967 if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India
with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public.
1. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
2.Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice.
The Audi Alteram Partem Rule
3. Section 10(3)(c) not Violative of Article 19(1)(A) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. The order is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

OBITER DICTA OF THE CASE

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression {Article 19(1)(a) is not bound only to the national
territories of India.
2. Article 21 is not to be read in isolation; all violations and procedural requirement under Article
21 are to be tested for Article 14 and Article 19.
Cases Referred
1. State of Orissa v dr(miss)binapani dei 1967 SC
2. R.C cooper v union of India 1970 SC
3. Kharak singh v state of U.P 1962 SC
4. A.K Gopalan v The state Of madras 1950 SC
5. S.N sarkar v West Bengal 1973 SC
6. Jabalpur v S. shukla 1976 SC
7. I.C golaknath v state of Punjab 1967 SC
CONCLUSION
Hence to conclude it may said that the Menaka Gandhi case the term personal liberty widest
possible interpretation and gave effect to the intention of the drafters of the constitution. This
case while adding a whole new dimensions to the concept of personal liberty extend the
protection of Art 14 to the personal liberty of every person and additional protection of Art 19 to
the personal liberty of every citizen.