Introduction

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI is one of the landmark cases of the country. The Wide interpretation given in this judgment has widened the meaning of Article 21 which was narrowed due to the earlier interpretation of Article 21 in AK Gopalan Case, the literal interpretation adopted by court make a lot of anomalous results and it is empowering the legislature to take the arbitrary action.

The decision taken in AK Gopalan simply states that the procedure established by law is only the law which the parliament enacts, and it is not subject to reasonability check as it is passed by a competent authority especially empowered by the constitution to enact laws. The court in that case stated that there is no involvement interlinked between the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. Principle of natural justice can be curtailed through the legislative actions. But the majority decisions in AK Gopalan is rejected by the decision of Maneka Gandhi.

The Researcher in this paper will analyze the interpretation adopted by the court in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI and what made the court to choose that rule of interpretation when the other rule of Interpretation is adopted by the court in AK Gopalan v. State of Madras. How the rule of interpretation which is involved in the case of Maneka Gandhi is useful and we will also look at the transition phase between AK Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi and find out why the court moves towards more liberal rule of Interpretation after Maneka Gandhi, this will be critically analyzed.

The Researcher will adopt the doctrinal method, and analyze the decision given by every judge and will analyze the interpretation adopted by each justice in Maneka Gandhi. There is huge role of Judicial minds in both the cases. In AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, the judgement is given by a 6-judges bench and in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the judgement is given by 7-judges bench to pass a more authoritative judgement.

Background of the Maneka Gandhi

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI[1], it is one the most important case of the Country. The Judgement passed in this case has broaden the scope of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Earlier, due to the vague and literal interpretation given by Supreme Court in the case of AK Gopalan v. State of Madras[2] narrows down the scope of the article. Due to AK Gopalan Judgement, there were lot of confusion in the country.

In the case of Ram Singh v. Delhi[3] anomalous results were given; a person was detained under the Preventive Detention Act for making speeches prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. At this time, Article 19(2) does not contain the expression ‘public order’ and so the freedom of speech could not be controlled for that purpose, but a prevention detention order, a much more drastic restriction on the person concerned.

The Supreme Court in this case rejected the petition challenging the validity of preventive detention stating that procedure established by the law does not fall under Article 19 as decision given in Gopalan Case states that the procedure established by law is whatever the parliament enacts. Its reasonability is not checked.

There were various such cases which depicted similar adoption of narrow interpretation after AK Gopalan Case. However, the most notable feature of this case is Justice Fazl Ali’s dissenting verdict, which was one of two in a six-judge panel. His dissenting opinion, issued in 1950, became a model of personal liberty and a more liberal perspective on fundamental rights. Therefore, before delving into Maneka Gandhi case we will first look AK Gopalan Case.

Facts of AK Gopalan

Mr. A. K. Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution in this case, and a writ of Habeus Corpus was issued against his detention in response to an order issued under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader who had been imprisoned since December 1947, after being convicted and sentenced under ordinary criminal laws. The court, however, reversed these convictions.

When Gopalan was arrested on March 1, 1950, he was served with an order from the Madras State Government, which was issued under section 3 (1) of the Act, which grants the State or Central Government powers. After that, he challenged the legality of the order made under the Act in court, claiming that the provisions of Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the provisions of Act 4 of 1950 of Madras State, violated human fundamental rights. Mr. Gopalan also claimed that the order he was given was erroneous.

Issues Raised

1.     Is the Madras State Detention Act in violation of the Indian Constitution’s Articles 19 and 21?

2.     Is the Indian Constitution’s Article 22 applicable to the State’s Detention Act, 1950?

Arguments and Reasoning

A.K.’s case is a good example of this. The majority of the judges decided that punitive and preventive detention were not covered by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, and thus the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 did not violate it. The court also argued that the said article protects free citizens, not citizens whose freedom is restricted by law, and thus the issue of enforcing Article 19(1) is moot.

Because the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 followed the legal procedure as enacted by state law, the Apex court concluded that it did not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 22 covers various provisions of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, while Article 21 adds those that are not. The Apex Court held that Section 3 of the Act was justified and that it was legal to give the executive such discretionary powers. The majority court also agreed on the validity of Sections 7 and 11 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, because under Article 22(7)(b), parliament does not have the mandatory power to set a minimum detention period, and under Article 22(5) and 22(6), the right to a fair trial is protected. Section 14 of the same Act was also declared unconstitutional because it challenged the court’s authority to decide whether or not detention was lawful.

Judgment in AK Gopalan

The Supreme Court of India ruled that every portion of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950, infringed on the provisions of Part III of the constitution, with the exception of Section 14 of the Act, which limits the declaration of detention grounds. The court declared Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950, to be ultra vires; however, the court’s ruling had no bearing on the act’s overall validity.

Dissenting opinion that became majority opinion in Maneka Gandhi Case

Fazl Ali, in his important dissent, stated that when analyzing fundamental rights violations, the court must interpret the various Articles under Part III of the Indian Constitution in a coordinated manner, rather than in silos. Furthermore, it was claimed that Sections 12 and 14 of the Act violated individual freedom and personal liberty by contravening Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, while agreeing with the majority judges’ interpretation, Justice Mahajan differed in his conclusion, declaring Section 12 ultra-vires.

After of AK Gopalan

The fundamental rights are now read separately, as interpreted in the A.K., based on the reasoning of procedural by due process. The case of Gopalan, which was denounced, demonstrates the importance of substantive due process in future cases. The Supreme Court of India held in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India that the procedure for Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the principles of equality and freedom set forth in Articles 13 and 19 of the Indian Constitution, and that the provisions of fundamental rights must be read in tandem.

Conclusion

This is a landmark decision by a six-judge panel, with the majority opinion in the case being that article 21, which covers legal procedure, simply refers to state law. It is argued that reading it within the rules of natural justice would provide an overly broad understanding, leaving the connotations of natural justice undefined.

This decision is based on a muddled understanding of law and natural morals. Professor Hart, who stated that while there is a link between law and morals, there is no interdependence between the two. In the aforementioned case, the court exaggerated this reasoning by interpreting that there is a specific standard set for law, which is formed through legislation and legitimizes it.

Furthermore, the court correctly states that law was intended to be understood as “jus,” that is, a law in the abstract sense of natural justice principles, rather than “lex,” which refers to enacted law. Recognizing the principles of natural justice is the true form of legitimacy for any law.

Transition period between AK Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi

There are several cases which has been decided after AK Gopalan and Before Maneka Gandhi on the same issues in which these cases are based. The Interpretation applied in each case is particularly important step towards the development of Art. 21. We will discuss the various cases briefly before moving to Maneka Gandhi. So, we can get the idea about the interpretation done by the Apex Court in the transition period.

The series of cases start from Ram Singh v. Delhi Admn. Which has been previously discussed by the researcher. So, moving to the next case which is RC Cooper v. UOI[4], it is also known as Bank Nationalization case. In this case court linked Article 19(1)(f) with Article 31(2).

Third case was Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal[5] in this case court linked Article 19 with Articles 21 and 22. Fourth Case was Bennett Coleman & Company v. UOI[6], In this case, the court stated that the effect test should be applied and not the subject matter test. The legislation may be passed for different purposes but if they infringe Article 19(1) directly or indirectly then the reasonability of the legislation is in question. All these cases are decided by a lower number of benches then in AK Gopalan. So, to completely overrule the decision taken in AK Gopalan, a higher bench is required and that is done in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI.

Facts of Maneka Gandhi

Maneka Gandhi was a Journalist, her passport was impounded “in public interest”. She filed a writ petition challenging that the impounding of passport violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Contentions of the respondents was her presence was required in connection with the proceeding before a Commission of Inquiry, which was then functioning.

The power given under the Passport Act, 1967 to the executive is unguided and unchallenged. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or a travel document on the grounds set out in clauses (a) to (h). Clause (c) provides that such action may be taken if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of India, friendly relation of India with foreign countries or in the interest of general public.

Maneka Gandhi passport was impounded on ground of interest in general public. Section 10(5) of the Act provides that passport authority compounding the passport should record in writing a brief statement of reasons for making such order and furnish to the holder of the passport.

As Per Contention of Respondent, her passport was impounded to secure her attendance for the inquiry by the commission. It is in no way a matter of public interest according to the reasons given by them that was for the inquiry purpose. How can be the inquiry of such her by some commission be a matter of public interest.

Issues involved in Maneka Gandhi case

1.     Whether there is interrelationship between art. 21, 19 & 14?

2.     Whether the Procedure established by the law had to fulfill the requirements of natural justice?

3.     Whether the act of travelling abroad is right under art. 19(1) (a) or (g)?

4.     Whether the order made by the executive is constitutionally valid or not because of arbitrariness?

Arguments raised by Petitioners

There are lot of issues involved and for every issue court must look for intrinsic as well as extrinsic aid of interpretation. The court pronounced the judgement after hearing both the parties. The contentions of Petitioners were:

First, under section 10(3)(c) of Passports Act, 1967 and it is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Freedom of Speech is violated by the actions of executive. Second, the Principles of Natural Justice i.e., giving fair chance of hearing, Audi Alteram Partem is also violated. Third, right to travel abroad is covered within the definition of Article 19(1) (a) or (g).

Arguments raised by Respondents

The Respondent argued that Government is agreeable to consider any representation made by the petitioner in respect of impounding the passport. So, the Petitioner has given a chance of representation and it is not arbitrary and violative of Art. 14. Also, the decision is backed by proper reason as it is done in the interest of general public.

Judgment in Maneka Gandhi Case

Judgement is the case of Maneka Gandhi was given by 7 judges bench as in the case of AK Gopalan the judgement was delivered by a 6-judge bench. So, it is necessary to setup a bench with higher number of judges to give more authoritative judgment after the decision taken in AK Gopalan and to overrule it.

The Ratio Given by Each Judge in Maneka Gandhi

Y.V. Chandrachud, J. stated that the procedure prescribed by laws must be fair, just, and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive of arbitrary. He also stated that even the fullest compliance with the requirements of Article 21 is not the journey’s end because a law which prescribes fair and reasonable procedure for curtailing personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 has still to meet a possible challenge under other provision of the Constitution like Article 14 and 19.

The plain meaning of the clause guaranteeing free speech and expression is that Indian citizens are entitled to exercise that right wherever they choose regardless of geographical consideration subject to restrictions. Further he stated that right to travel abroad cannot fall under the meaning of right of freedom of speech and expression because if it is done so then one right leading to another and that another to still another and so on is productive of uncertain and anomalous results.

Krishna Iyer, J. stated that no rights in the Constitution is pertaining to a Fundamental Right is an island in itself. Personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile. He also stated that there is certain normative harmony among the articles is thus attained and Article 21 bears in its bosom the construction of fair procedure legislatively sanctioned.

He stated that just like limbs of human being cannot be separated so as the Fundamental Rights under Art. 21, 19 & 14 are mutually dependent on each other. The proposition is indubitable that Art. 21 does not exclude Art. 19 if both rights are breached. At last, he said that the Act will survive but the order will perish.

P.S. Kailasam, J. stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any fundamental rights enumerated in Article 19. Also, He stated that the Passport Act is made in accordance with the Constitution as it is the procedure established by law. Further, he stated that the Petitioner is been given a fair chance of representation so, the court now do not need to go into merits of the case any further.

He stated that Article 19(1) is subject to the restrictions that may be placed under Article 19(2) to (6). The Restriction can only be limited within the territory of India and if the legislature wants to use the restrictions outside the territory. It must express it in the provision, but the legislature does not. So, petitioner cannot claim that by denying her passport her Fundamental Rights is abridged.

Further, he stated that the validity of the Passport Act will have to be examined on the basis of whether it directly or indirectly infringes on any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. If a passport is refused according to the procedure established by law, it cannot be said that it is violative of fundamental rights when it is complying with the requirements of Article 21.

He stated that the legislature may deny a person the right to be heard. In this case as mentioned by Attorney General, there is a fear that the petitioner will escape the country. So, prior notice may give her chance to leave India and she has been given fair chance of representation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was complete denial of the procedure. Government is bound to record the reasons in writing and when it is important for the secrecy of the facts. It cannot disclose the detailed reasons.

M.H. Beg, C.J. stated that the Constitution must be read as an integral whole, with possible overlapping of the subject-matter of what is sought to be protected by its various provisions particularly by articles relating to fundamental rights. Further, he stated that Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution form the test of validity of executive as well as legislative actions when these actions are subjected to the judicial scrutiny. He also stated that there should be some link between the Natural law and the fundamental rights.

He also proposed that the total effect of the action taken by the government on the individual fundamental rights should be taken into consideration and whether the exercise of restrictions is reasonably permissible on the facts and circumstance of the case. Both the substantive and procedural law and actions taken under them should pass the test imposed by Articles 14 and 19. Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution form the tests of validity of executive as well as legislative actions.

P.N. Bhagwati, J. (for himself, Untwalia and Fazal Ali, JJ.) He has given the leading opinion in this case. He stated that Articles 19, 14 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. There is a nexus that has been established between all these Articles and all these Articles are interlinked. Therefore, law violating personal liberty has to fulfill the test under Article 14 and 19. He stated that right to travel abroad is well within the scope of Article 21. The personal liberty should not be read in a restricted sense to exclude all the attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in Article 19.

Further, He stated that procedure established by law does not means that whatever law legislature can enact. It must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being fair and reasonable. He examined case decided by Supreme Court that is Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathram[7] in which it is declared that the Right to travel abroad is within the scope of Article 21.

Interpretation Involved in Maneka Gandhi case

The Interpretation applied in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI is very wide. The Interpretation used is Liberal rule. The literal Interpretation used in AK Gopalan was giving absurd meaning to the Art. 21 by Narrowing down the views of Art. 21. There were 7 judges who have given the judgement of this case. Majority judgement of the court in Maneka Gandhi is same as what J. Bhagwati Stated. So, the interpretation adopted by J. Bhagwati is Liberal rule of interpretation. Literal rule of interpretation is used by J. Kailasam in Maneka Gandhi and Majority in AK Gopalan case.

The Reason behind using Literal rule of interpretation is that they stated that legislature is the supreme authority and if they make any law, there reasonability should not be questioned because they have been elected by the people itself.

Whereas the majority in Maneka used Liberal rule of interpretation, the reason of majority is that the Provisions related to Fundamental Rights are made to gives the person or citizen some basic guaranteed rights which cannot be curtailed without a valid reason. Because if we look into the history of our Country, we will find that there is denial of our basic rights, along with it is also important to develop human personality and preserve dignity.

Whenever there is involvement of interpretation of Fundamental Rights the Court should adopt the Liberal rule of interpretation as it would benefit the Individual. The purpose of Fundamental Rights is to preserve an Individual Interest. So, if strict interpretation is used then the very purpose of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution will remain unfulfilled.

Also, it should be noted that an Individual freedom and rights is the most important thing. No matter who rules whether if people is bound by an Indian ruler or his liberty is infringed by a Britishers it would no longer matter if the fundamental rights of a person is secured. The judgement given by J. Bhagwati reflects the same. He stated there should be reasonability of procedures also. No Right can be curtailed by a valid procedure. Now, the researchers will analyze in detail about the Interpretation used in AK Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi and the cases in transition period.

Conclusion

The Researcher can say that the interpretation applied in Maneka Gandhi is valid and justified after in-depth analysis. The Researcher would like to quote the statement given by Salmond “the essence of law lies in the spirit not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it.”

What will be the broad purpose behind inserting Art. 21? Right to life does not means that there should only be mere animal existence. There should be a broader purpose behind Article 21 and that is fulfilled by Court decision in Maneka Gandhi.

If we go by strict interpretation as given by courts in AK Gopalan. Many of the rights which are now facets of rights to life does not have mere existence. Therefore, The Researchers would like to say that Extrinsic aids of interpretation should be looked upon by the courts while interpreting constitutional provisions such parliamentary history, historical facts and surrounding circumstances and the report of various committees/commissions.

Therefore, the court should take a liberal stance while interpreting fundamental rights because it involves the rights of a citizen and if the government is taking away the right it should take it with reasonable procedure.

Related Queries

What was held in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, What are the changes brought by Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, Journey from AK Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi, How Article 21 was interpreted in Maneka Gandhi Case, Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India Supreme Court (1978). What is procedure established by law, How Maneka Gandhi case changed the dynamics of Article 21.

Read more similar topics by clicking here.