Question

In Maneka Gandhi case it was observed that

• A. Confiscation of Passport was correct
• B. Right to go abroad is not within the meaning of Article 21
• C. Right to go abroad is within the ambit of Article 19 (1)(A) but the confiscation of Passport is not accordance to the law
• D. None of the above

Hint:

The Maneka Gandhi case expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to travel abroad, and any restriction must be in accordance with the law.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Maneka Gandhi Case.
In the landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court observed that the right to move abroad comes under Article 21, which guarantees the protection of personal liberty. The Court ruled that the confiscation of Maneka Gandhi's passport was not in accordance with law, even though the government had the authority to impose restrictions.

Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (a) The confiscation of the passport was not lawful in this case. - (b) The Court held that the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. - (d) This is incorrect, as the Court's decision was clearly based on the law surrounding personal liberty and the right to travel abroad.

Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct interpretation in the Maneka Gandhi case was that the right to go abroad is part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, but the confiscation of her passport was not in accordance with the law.