Case Analysis of "Maneka Gandhi v. UOI" from an Administrative Law POV.

1. MANEKA GANDHI
V
UNION OF INDIA
(AIR 1978 SC 597)
- Abharika Choudhuri
(2183009, BA LLB, Section A – Sem 5)

2. FACTS
◦ Maneka Gandhi, a political leader, had her
passport impounded by the government
without any explanation or justification.
◦ Gandhi challenged the impounding order,
arguing that it violated her fundamental rights,
specifically the right to personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
◦ The government claimed that the impounding
was necessary in the interest of the general
public and that they were not required to
disclose reasons for their decision.
◦ The case was heard by the Supreme Court of
India.
ISSUES
1. Whether the impounding of her passport,
without any reasons or opportunity to
defend herself, violates her fundamental
right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution?
2. Whether the government’s action was
arbitrary and unfair, lacking any due
process or adherence to established legal
principles?
3. Whether the impounding infringes upon
other fundamental rights, such as the
right to equality under Article 14 and the
right to freedom of movement under
Article 19?

3. CONTENTIONS
MANEKA GANDHI
◦ Impounding her passport violated her
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21, as
the “right to travel abroad” is an integral part of
the right to personal liberty
◦ The action was arbitrary and unreasonable.
◦ The government's claim of “general public
interest” was vague and unsubstantiated.
◦ She was denied the right to be heard, violating
the principles of natural justice.
UNION OF INDIA
o The specific reasons could not be disclosed due
to national security concerns, and thus, the
government had discretionary powers in matters
related to national security and public interest.
o The government was not required to provide
reasons for its decision as long as it acted in
good faith.
o The “right to travel abroad” was not explicitly
mentioned in Article 21 and could be reasonably
restricted.
o The legal framework already provided sufficient
procedural safeguards against arbitrary action.

4. HELD
◦ “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” under
Article 21 includes the “right to travel
abroad”.
◦ The impounding of the passport was
without due process.
◦ The lack of substantial reasons for its
actions by the government was arbitrary
and amounted to an infringement of
procedural fairness.
◦ Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967,
which granted the government unfettered
discretion to impound passports without
any specific criteria or safeguards, was
declared unconstitutional.
RATIO DECIDENDI
◦ Right to Know and Right to Challenge – essential
components of procedural fairness.
◦ Due Process – Fundamental Right
◦ State accountability and transparency
◦ Interconnectedness of various Fundamental Rights
◦ Link between Fundamental Rights and procedural
fairness
◦ The ruling wrt the impugned section established the
need for clear guidelines and procedures to ensure
fair and transparent decision-making by the state.

5. RELEVANCE
◦ Due process and fair hearing: Administrative authorities must provide individuals with adequate notice
of any action against them, disclose reasons for such action, and offer a meaningful opportunity to be
heard before making a decision.
◦ Greater transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.
◦ Procedural safeguards against arbitrary power: The court emphasized that the mere existence of a
law does not automatically justify its application; it must also adhere to principles of fairness and
natural justice. This has led to the development of various procedural safeguards in administrative law,
such as the right to access information, the right to make representations, and the right to appeal
decisions.
◦ Expansion of personal liberty: Administrative authorities must now demonstrate a more compelling
justification for infringing upon these expanded notions of personal liberty.
◦ Post-decisional hearing: The concept of a post-decisional hearing was introduced in administrative
law. This means that even after an administrative decision is made, if it is challenged for violating
fundamental rights, the aggrieved party must be granted an opportunity to be heard. This ensures that
even if procedural safeguards were not followed initially, there is still a mechanism for redressal and
review.

6. THANK YOU!