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. Right to go abroad is part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21

Hint:

Remember the Maneka Gandhi case for three main things: 1) Widening the scope of Article 21 (Right to go abroad), 2) Introducing the 'due process' doctrine of fairness, justice, and reasonableness into procedure, and 3) Interlinking Articles 14, 19, and 21 (the golden triangle).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Note: The provided image cuts off option (D). A logical option (D) has been added based on the landmark judgment.

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the key principle or observation laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. The petitioner's passport was impounded by the government 'in public interest' without giving her a reason or a hearing. The Supreme Court delivered a transformative judgment:
- It held that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary or fanciful. This introduced the American concept of 'procedural due process' into Article 21.
- It gave a wide interpretation to 'personal liberty' under Article 21, ruling that it includes a variety of rights, and one among them is the right to travel abroad.
- It established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 (the 'golden triangle'), stating that any law affecting personal liberty must also pass the test of reasonableness under Article 19 and equality under Article 14.
Based on this, let's analyze the options:
- (A) is incorrect. The court found the confiscation arbitrary.
- (B) is incorrect. The court explicitly held the opposite.
- (C) is partially correct in its second half but incorrect in placing the right under Article 19(1)(a). The court linked it primarily to Article 21.
- (D) (Reconstructed) is the most accurate summary of the core finding regarding the right to travel abroad. The court held that the right to go abroad is an essential part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case observed that the Right to go abroad is part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.