The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case is one of the most important judgments in Indian constitutional law.
Below is a complete, article-wise and section-wise explanation — including facts, issues, arguments, judgment, and significance — in simple, detailed English (and I can also give you the Hindi version afterward if you want).

Note :- All such information will be provided on our website livelawcompany.com

1. Bench: 7 Judges

   • Chief Justice M. H. Beg

   • Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam, and A.C. Gupta

2. Date of Judgment: January 25, 1978

3. Petitioner: Maneka Gandhi

4. Respondent: Union of India

5. Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597

6. Relevant Articles: Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution

Facts of the Case

• Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and the daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967 on 1 June 1976.

• On 2 July 1977, the Regional Passport Officer (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport citing “public interest.”

• No reason was given for the confiscation.

• When Maneka Gandhi requested the reasons, the government refused, citing national interest.

• She filed a writ petition (Article 32) before the Supreme Court of India, claiming violation of her fundamental rights.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the right to travel abroad is a part of the “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution?

2. Can the Passport Act, 1967, permit the government to impound a passport without giving reasons or opportunity to be heard?

3. What is the relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21?

4. What is the scope and meaning of “procedure established by law” under Article 21?

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

Article 14 – Right to Equality

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 19 – Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc.

Includes freedom of movement and freedom of speech and expression.

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Arguments by Petitioner (Maneka Gandhi)

• The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.

• The Passport Act and the government’s action were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Articles 14, 19, and 21.

• “Procedure established by law” should mean a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, not arbitrary or oppressive.

• The principles of natural justice (like the right to be heard) were violated.

Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India)

• The Passport Act, 1967, provides legal authority to impound passports.

• The decision was made in the public interest, and disclosing reasons could affect national security.

• The right to travel abroad is not an absolute right.

Judgment (7-Judge Bench)

1. Expanded Meaning of Article 21

• The Court gave a very wide interpretation to the term “personal liberty”.

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati said:

  “The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man.”

• Thus, the right to travel abroad was held to be a part of personal liberty.

2. “Procedure Established by Law” Must Be Fair, Just, and Reasonable

• The Court held that the procedure under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable.

• If it is unfair, it violates Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedom).

• This overruled the earlier narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).

3. Interconnection Between Articles 14, 19, and 21

• These three Articles are not mutually exclusive — they must be read together.

• A law affecting personal liberty must pass the tests of fairness (Art. 14), freedom (Art. 19), and procedure (Art. 21).

4. Principles of Natural Justice

• The government must give the affected person a chance to be heard (audi alteram partem).

• The impounding order without reasons or opportunity to explain was invalid.

5. Impact on Passport Act

• The Passport Act was constitutional, but its application in this case violated fundamental rights because it lacked procedural fairness.

Final Decision

• The Supreme Court held that the government’s order to impound Maneka Gandhi’s passport was invalid because it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21.

• However, the Court allowed the government to hold the passport temporarily until the reason was properly disclosed and justified.

• The Court broadened the scope of fundamental rights and made Article 21 the heart of the Constitution.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Expanded Article 21:
   Life and personal liberty now include right to travel, right to privacy, right to live with dignity, etc.

2. Established “Golden Triangle” Doctrine:
   Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and must be read together.

3. Shift from A.K. Gopalan:
   Overturned the earlier view that these rights were separate.

4. Introduced Substantive Due Process:
   “Procedure established by law” = procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable.

5. Foundation for Future Judgments:
   Later landmark cases like Right to Privacy (2017), Right to Education, and Right to Clean Environment rely on Maneka Gandhi.

Key Takeaways

Important Articles Referenced