• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Maneka Gandhi case
 

Maneka Gandhi case

on

  • 32,163 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
32,163
Views on SlideShare
32,101
Embed Views
62

Actions

Likes
12
Downloads
0
Comments
2

3 Embeds 62

http://www.slideshare.net 35
https://tasks.crowdflower.com 25
http://alippazhangalll.blogspot.in 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Menka Gandhi is Frud,she make fool to other and inocent animals also.
    She is lost her mental balance. She is just time pass in People for Animals. And she is not able to cont..with P.F.A. and other social work,Becoz, She is mentally disturb about her son and son's girl friends divorce matters. So, She is writtting xxxx with others and if u r frquest to need for help, then she replay is u are mental case or u r chutiya. So, menka is not able for Anything. She is take revange with Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul gandhi.About some 'Property matters'.So, menka is going to mad personl What a shocinggggggggggggggggggggggggg news ..
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • hello mr.satya,
    i am manu srinath,1st yr bba llb student from national law university,cuttack.
    this case ' maneka gandhi v union of india' is my tort project for this semester .it would be of gr8 help if i get this presentation to refer to.it wil b of high gratitude if u send me this presentation to my mail id..'manusrinath@gmail.com'...
    went thru ur slides....they r just the superb.....congrats....
    hope to get in touch wid u...
    manu
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Maneka Gandhi case Maneka Gandhi case Presentation Transcript

    • Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 Satya Ranjan Swain B.A.LL.B (3rd Sem.) Roll No. 783023
    • The Court is here!! Name of the parties Name of the Judges • Petitioner : Mrs. Maneka • M.H. Beg, C.J. Gandhi • P.N. Bhagwati • Respondent: Union of India • Y.V. Chandrachud (UOI) and others • V.R. Krishna Iyer • N.L. Untwalia • P.S. Kailasam • S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
    • Facts • On July,04,1977, Smt. Maneka Gandhi, received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi intimating her to surrender the passport (No. K-869668) within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter, as it was decided by the Government of India to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967in “public interest”..
    • Contd.. • The petitioner immediately sends a letter to the Regional Passport Officer asking the reasons and requesting him to provide a copy of the ‘statement of reasons’ for making the order.
    • • On the reply it was sent by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, on July 6, 1977 stating that the Government has decided to impound the passport – quot;in the interest of the general publicquot; and – not to hand over her a copy of the statement of reasons. So, the petitioner filed a petition
    • Issues 1. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution? 2. Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates the Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution? 3. Is Freedom of Speech and expression confined to the territory of India ? 4. Is the right to go abroad covered by article 19(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution? 5. Whether the impugned order is intra vires Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967? 6. Is the impugned order Constitutionally valid?
    • Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution? 1 • Under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, the Passport Authority impounded the passport of the petitioner quot;in the interests of the general public.quot; • Thus it confers unguided and unfettered power to the Passport Authority • It is violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14.
    • Respondant argues.. • The words quot;in the interests of the general publicquot; have a clearly well defined meaning. • Section 10(3)(c) is not wider than the constitutional provision in Article 19(5) of the Constitution. • The Passport authority is required to record in writing a brief statement of reasons for impounding the passport and, save in certain exceptional circumstances, to supply a copy of such statement to the person affected,
    • Contd.. • The power is exercised by the Central Government itself. So, it can safely be assumed that the Central Government will exercise the power in a reasonable and responsible manner.
    • Is Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967 , violates the Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution? 2 • 19. (1) All citizens shall have the right— – (a) to freedom of speech and expression; – (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
    • • The right, which is sought to be restricted by Section 10(3)(c) and the order, is the right to go abroad and that is not named as a fundamental right. • But the argument of the petitioner was that the right to go abroad is an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression and whenever State action, be it law or executive fiat, restricts or interferes with the right to go abroad, it necessarily involves curtailment of freedom of speech and expression.
    • Respondent argues.. • The right to go abroad could not possibly be comprehended within freedom of speech and expression, because the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) was exercisable only within the territory of India and the guarantee of its exercise did not extend outside the country and hence State action restricting or preventing exercises of the right to go abroad could not be said to be violative of freedom of speech and expression
    • Is Freedom of Speech and expression confined to the territory of India ? 3 The Union of India challenged that it was the basic propose of the Constitution that the fundamental rights guaranteed by it were available only within the territory of India, for it could never have been the intention of the constitution-makers to confer rights which the authority of the State could not enforce.
    • Arguments of the Petitioner • These rights were conceived by the Constitution-makers not in a narrow limited since but in their widest sweep, for the aim and objective was to build a new social order where man will not be a mere plaything in the hands of the State or a few privileged persons but there will be full scope and opportunity for him to achieve the maximum development of his personality and the dignity of the individual will be fully assured.
    • • Could the constitution-makers have intended that a citizen should have this freedom in India but not outside ? • Freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to gather information as also to speak and express oneself at home and abroad and to exchange thoughts and ideas with others not only in India but also outside. • The words quot;in the territory of Indiaquot; could have been added at the end of Article 19(1)(a). But it was deliberately refrained from using any words of limitation.
    • • While the constitutional debate was going on, the UDHR was adopted and most of the fundamental rights which is included in Part III were recognised and adopted by the U N as the inalienable rights of man in the UDHR. • Article 13 of the UDHR declared that quot;every one has right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and import information and ideas …quot;. • This was the glorious declaration of the fundamental freedom of speech and expression - noble in conception and universal in scope - which was before them when the constitution-makers enacted Article 19(1)(a).
    • Is the right to go abroad covered by article 19(a) or (g) of the Indian Constitution? 4 • The right of free speech and expression and right to profession can have meaningful content and its exercise can be effective only if the right to travel abroad is ensured and without it, the former rights would be limited by geographical constraints and restrains.
    • Whether the impugned order is intra vires Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act 1967? 5 The responded claims the order was according to the stated sec. But the petitioner claims that the order was violating the section, because according to the section the authority should give the reason. But the responded hadn’t. so, ..
    • Is the impugned order Constitutionally valid? 6 • A gross violation of the natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem. Therefore, null and void.
    • Contd.. • It would be entirely for the Commission of Inquiry to decide whether her presence is necessary or not . But the impugned order was on the basis of a mere opinion by the Central Government that the petitioner is likely to be required in connection with the proceeding before the Commission of Inquiry was, in the circumstance, clearly unreasonable
    • It is also violative of the Art. 19(2)(6) (The tests of validity of restrictions imposed upon the rights covered by Article 19(1) will be found in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.)
    • Judgment • (1) To the extent to which Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 authorises the passport authority to impound a passport quot;in the interests of the general publicquot;, 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;
    • Contd.. • (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 practised 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). • A new doctrine of Post decisional theory was evolved.
    • Critical evaluation • In this case the Hon’ble court interpreted different Articles of the Constitution very brilliantly. But the post decisional doctrine, which was given in this case, I think is not good. A person should be given the chance of defending himself, before the before the decision. And in this case the petitioner should be compensated.
    • Cases referred • State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei 1967 SC • R. C. Cooper v. Union of India 1970 SC • Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. 1962 SC • A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras 1950 SC • Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal 1974 SC • S. N. Sarkar v. West Bengal 1973 S.C. • Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi 1967 SC • Kharak Singh v. State of U. P. 1962 SC • Jabalpur v. S. Shukla 1976 SC • I. C Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 SC