What did Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decide about Article 21?

The Court said the procedure in Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable. It cannot be arbitrary or oppressive.

Are Articles 14, 19, and 21 connected?

Yes. A law that limits personal liberty must satisfy equality under Article 14 and freedoms under Article 19, along with Article 21.

Was the Passport Act provision struck down?

No. Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) were upheld but remain open to challenge if used unfairly or without natural justice.

Does Article 21 include the right to travel abroad?

Yes, travel abroad falls within personal liberty, but it can be reasonably regulated by fair law.

Which older view was overruled?

A.K. Gopalan’s narrow view of isolated fundamental rights was overruled. Articles now operate in harmony.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

1701

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Article 21, 14 & 19 Linked | Simple Case Explainer

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)

Supreme Court of India 1978 7-Judge Bench AIR 1978 SC 597 Fundamental Rights ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | Location: India | Published: 24 Oct 2025

Illustration of Supreme Court and passport for Maneka Gandhi case

CASE_TITLE: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 21, Article 14, Article 19 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Passport Act 1967, due process, natural justice PUBLISH_DATE: 24-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india

Quick Summary

This case changed how we read fundamental rights. The Court said: personal liberty in Article 21 cannot be cut down by an unfair process. Any law touching liberty must also respect equality (Article 14) and freedoms (Article 19). Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) of the Passport Act were upheld, but the State must act fairly and hear the person.

Articles 14, 19, and 21 work together, not in silos.
“Procedure established by law” = fair, just, reasonable — not arbitrary.
Travel abroad is part of personal liberty, subject to fair regulation.

Issues

Do Articles 14, 19, and 21 operate together?
What is the meaning of “procedure established by law” in Article 21?
Does personal liberty include the right to travel abroad?
Can a law that limits life or liberty be unreasonable yet valid?

Rules

Passport Act 1967 — Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5)
Constitution — Articles 14, 19, and 21

Facts (Timeline)

1 June 1976: Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, received a passport under the Passport Act, 1967.

7 July 1977: Regional Passport Officer, New Delhi, ordered her to surrender the passport under Section 10(3)(c), citing “public interest”.

She asked for reasons as allowed by Section 10(5). The authorities refused, saying reasons could not be disclosed in public interest.

She moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and challenged Section 10(3)(c) as unconstitutional.

The State said the passport was needed as she had to appear before a government committee. It argued that Article 21’s “procedure” need not pass Article 14 or 19 tests.

Timeline graphic of steps in Maneka Gandhi case

Arguments

Appellant (Maneka Gandhi)

Passport impounding without reasons violates natural justice (audi alteram partem).
Travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable; not arbitrary.
Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read together.

Respondent (Union of India)

Action taken in public interest; appearance before committee required.
Article 21 only needs a “procedure established by law”, not the Article 14/19 tests.
Disclosure of reasons may harm public interest; can be withheld.

Judgment

The Court upheld Sections 10(3)(c) and 10(5) of the Passport Act. However, such orders are administrative and can be struck down if they are mala fide, unreasonable, deny natural justice, or are ultra vires.

“Public interest” is not vague by itself.
Authorities must act fairly and give a hearing unless there are strong reasons not to (and those reasons must themselves be lawful and justified).
The case moved Indian law away from the narrow Gopalan view to a rights-integrated approach.

Judgment gavel and Supreme Court pillars

Ratio

“Procedure established by law” in Article 21 means a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable. Any law affecting personal liberty must also satisfy Articles 14 and 19. A.K. Gopalan is overruled on isolation of rights.

Why It Matters

Set the modern test of fairness for all procedures under Article 21.
Linked equality, freedoms, and liberty — a unified rights approach.
Strengthened natural justice in administrative actions.

Key Takeaways

Articles 14, 19, 21 act together like a “triple lock” on State power.
Fair hearing is the rule; denial needs strong, lawful reasons.
Travel abroad is liberty; regulation must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “FJR-141921” — Fair-Just-Reasonable + Articles 14-19-21 linked.

Spot liberty → think Article 21.
Test fairness → fair, just, reasonable?
Cross-check with Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) and Article 19 (freedoms).

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Are Arts. 14, 19, 21 connected?	Constitution + case law trend	Liberty limits must satisfy equality and freedoms	Yes, they operate together
Meaning of “procedure” in Art. 21?	Article 21 text read with Art. 14	Arbitrary procedure fails equality and liberty	Must be fair, just, reasonable
Right to travel abroad?	Scope of personal liberty	Passport control allowed, but needs fair process	Included; subject to fair law

Glossary

Procedure established by law: A process set by valid law; after this case it must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Natural justice: Basic fairness rules like notice and hearing.
Ultra vires: Beyond legal power or authority.

FAQs

Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable. Unfair process cannot take away liberty.

Yes. A restriction on liberty must also satisfy equality and freedoms tests.

No. It was upheld but must be applied fairly and can be challenged if misused.

Comment

Nothing for now