Maneka gandhi v union of india

Shambhu Maneka gandhi v union of india Sarkar v. It cannot be said that a good enough reason has been shown too exist for impounding the passport of the petitioner. The spirit of Man is at the root of Art. Travel, simpliciter, is peripheral to and not necessarily fundamental in Art.

Section 5 1 provides for making of an application for issue of a passport or travel document for visiting foreign country. This clearly shows that there is no underlying principle in the Constitution which, limits the fundamental right in their operation to the territory of India.

Therefore, the grant of wide discretionary power to the exe- cutive authorities cannot be considered as unreasonable yet there must be procedural safeguards to ensure that the Power will not be used for purposes extraneous to the grant of the power. The principle of reasonableness which legally as well Maneka gandhi v union of india philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omni-presence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article Secondly, a citizen cannot enforce his fundamental rights outside the territory of India even if it is taken that such rights are available outside the country.

On the 4th of Julythe petitioner received a letter dated 2nd July,from the Regional Passport Officer Delhi intimating to her that it was decided by the Government of India to impound her passport under s.

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.

Secondly, there may be cases where even if the order is innocent on its face, the refusal of permission to go to a foreign country may, with certainty and immediacy, spell denial of free speech and professional practice or business. Soon after the Congress Party was ousted by the Janata Party, she began using Surya as a political platform to restore the image of the Congress Party and discredit leaders of the new government.

Union of India [] Mysore Law Journal p. The question whether the procedure prescribed by law which curtails or takes away the personal liberty guaranteed by Art. The natural law rights were meant to be converted into our constitutionally recognised fundamental rights so that they are to be found within it and not outside it.

The judgment became a springboard for the evolution of the law relating to judicial preservation of human rights. What is the subject matter of the action and to which fundamental right does it relate?

And that is supplied by the criterion of "inevitable" consequence or effect adumbrated in the Express Newspaper case SCR However, it was only in R. The issue of passport was entirely within the unguided and unchannelled discretion of the Executive.

The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to provide for the issue of passport and travel documents to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for incidental and ancillary matters.

Section 10 3 c not Violative of Article 19 1 A and Article 19 1 g of the Constitution — Article 19 1 a of the Constitution talks about the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to all citizens of the country. Where a statutory provision empowering an authority to take action is constitutionally valid, action taken under it may offend a fundamental right and in that event, though the statutory provision is valid, the action may be void.

The Central Government declined to furnish a copy of this statement of reasons for impounding the passport of the petitioner on the ground that it was not in the interest of the general public to furnish such copy to the petitioner.

However, since no such words had been added at the end of this provision, the Court felt that it was its duty to give it the widest interpretation possible.

The learned Attorney General, however, made a statement on behalf of the Government of India that the Government was agreeable to considering any representation that may be made by the petitioner in respect of the impounding of her passport and giving her an opportunity in the matter, and that the representation would be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law.

The leading opinion was delivered by Justice P. The doctrine that Articles 19 and 21 protect or regulate flows in different channels, was laid down in A.

Ram Sanehi Singh [] 3 S. The pith and substance doctrine looks only at the object and subject matter of the state action, but in testing the validity of the state action with reference to fundamental rights, what the Courts must consider is the direct and inevitable consequence of the State action.

An order impounding a passport can be made by the Passport Authority only if it is actually in the interests of the general public to do so and it is not enough that the interests of the general public may be likely to be served in future by the making of the order.Maneka Gandhi Case: Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India - Legal News India, Legal News World, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of India, Delhi high court.

The Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (Maneka Gandhi) case arose in the period immediately following the end of the national Emergency in India, with the Janata Party government assuming power in Maneka Gandhi, daughter-in-law of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and founder-editor of a.

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

Maneka Gandhi’s case is not only a landmark case for the interpretation of Article 21 but it also gave an entirely new viewpoint to look at the Chapter III of the Constitution.

Prior to Maneka Gandhi’s decision, Article 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty. 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. Feb 01,  · संजय गांधी और मेनका गांधी की प्रेम कहानी, Sanjay Gandhi and Menka Gandhi love story.

A Case Analysis: Of the Maneka Gandhi Case

- Duration: India IQviews. 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.

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 25th January, 1978 Download
Maneka gandhi v union of india
Rated 3/5 based on 77 review