Maneka gandhi v union of india

Cooper's case and the approach of the Court in, the interpretation of the fundamental rights must now be in tune with this wave length.

Gopalan's case in a context which was very different from that in which that approach was displaced by the counter view that the constitution must be read as an integral whole, with possi, ble overlappings of the subject matter, of what is sought to be protected by its various provisions, particularly by articles relating to fundamental rights.

The impugned order could not consistently with Articles 19 1 a and g be passed on a mere information of the Central Government that the presence of the petitioner is likely to be required in connection with the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry. AIR SC The law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing procedure for depriving a person of personal liberty and there is consequently no infringe- ment of the fundamental right conferred by Art.

An order impounding a passport must be made quasi- judicially. In exceptional cases and emergency situations, interim measures may be taken, to avoid the mischief of the passportee becoming an. Among the great guaranteed rights life and liberty are the first among equals, carrying a universal connotation cardinal to a decent human order and protected by constitutional armour.

Thus it serves national interest to have its citizenry see other countries and judge one's country on a comparative scale. This was not done in the present case. Unilateral arbitrariness, police dossiers, faceless affiants, behind- the-back materials oblique motives and the inscrutable face of an official sphinx do not fill the 'fairness,' bill.

Singh 's Janata Dal and became the General Secretary. The reasons if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order impounding the passport, the refusal to disclose the reasons would also be open to the scrutiny of the court; or else the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could with impunity be set at nought by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 25th January, 1978

Se ction 3 provides that no person shall denart from or attempt to depart from India unless he holds in this 'behalf a valid passport or travel document. The theory that a peripheral or concomitant right which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right or gives its meaning and substance or makes its exercise effective, is itself a guaranteed right included within the named fundamental right cannot be accepted.

In a well ordered civilised society, freedom can only be regulated freedom. Where the Passport Authority which has impounded a passport is other than the Central Government a right of appeal against the order impounding the passport is given by section But that is not conclusive of the question.

This criterion helps to quantify the extent of directness necessary to constitute infringement of a fundamental right. The rules of natural justice would in the circumstances be applicable in the exercise of the power of impounding a passport even on the orthodox view which prevailed prior to A.

The passport of the petitioner was impounded in public interest by an order dated July 2, under Section 10 3 c of the Passports Act,and the Government of India having declined in the interests of general public to furnish to her the reasons for its decision, she filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Hameedullah CjChandrachud, Y. However, the Court has refrained from outrightly commenting on this issue in this particular case. Article 14 is a founding faith of the Constitution. The order impounding the passport of the petitioner was, therefore, clearly in violation of the rule of natural justice embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem and was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the Act.

State of Madras [] SCR referred to. In matters such as, grant, suspension, impounding or cancellation of passports, the possible dealing of an individual with nationals and authorities of other States have to be considered. Law in Article 21 affecting personal liberty must satisfy the test of one or more of the rights under Article 19 and the test of reasonableness under Article Otherwise, they were definitely in the wrong and even the Court had held that their action had been arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

B quoted with approval. But it must be remembered that in such a case the power is exercised by the Central Government itself and it can safely be assumed that the Central Govt. The arbitrariness comes from the fact that it is completely in the hands of the passport authorities to decide whether or not, and how to proceed in a particular case.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 25th January, 1978

Fairplay in action requires that in administrative proceedings also the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. List of his Quora Answers.

It is true that that there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate, but that does not justify reading of a statutory provision in a manner not warranted by the language or narrowing down its scope and meaning by introducing a limitation which has no basis either in the, language or in the context of a statutory provision Clauses de and h of S.

The party primarily focused on youth empowerment and employment. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice: It has been decided by this ,Court in Gopalan's case that the punitive detention for offences under the Penal Code cannot be challenged on the ground that it infringes fundamental rights under Article In Juneduring a Facebook Live session, she commented that men do not commit suicide.

This theory that "the extent of protection of important guarantees, such as the liberty of persons and right to property, depend upon the form and object of the state action not upon its direct operation upon the individual's freedom" held sway, in spite of three decisions of the Supreme Court in Dwarkadass Srinivas v.

Supreme Court AOR Examination – Leading Cases – Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

The test formulated in R. In such a case, violation of both Arts. One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and Law is reasonable law, not any enacted piece.Post-Maneka Gandhi: New Dimension In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the meaning and content of the words ‘personal liberty’ again came up for the consideration of the Supreme Court.

In this case, the petitioner’s passport had been impounded by the Central Government u/s 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, A Case Analysis: Of the Maneka Gandhi Case. Article 19, Article 21, Union of India v. Motion Picture Association, Romesh Thappar v.

State of Madras, defamation, Law Commission of India in its th Report, Contempt of.

A Case Analysis: Of the Maneka Gandhi Case

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (also spelled Menaka) (née Anand; born 26 August ) is the Indian Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development in the Government of PM Narendra Modi. She is also an animal rights activist, environmentalist, and widow of the Indian politician Sanjay Gandhi.

Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However, the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such reason in the interest of general public.

Feb 01,  · संजय गांधी और मेनका गांधी की प्रेम कहानी, Sanjay Gandhi and Menka Gandhi love story. - Duration: India IQviews. Originally Answered: What was the controversy behind the revocation of Maneka Gandhi's passport (that led to the historic Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case)?

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on and within a week the same was impounded.

Maneka gandhi v union of india
Rated 5/5 based on 62 review