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 21 but the confiscation of Passport is not in accordance to the law
• D. None of the above

Hint:

The Maneka Gandhi case is pivotal for understanding Article 21. It established the "golden triangle" principle, where Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked and any law or procedure must satisfy the tests of all three.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, is a landmark judgment that significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Supreme Court in this case made several crucial observations:
1. The 'Right to go abroad' is a part of the 'Right to personal liberty' under Article 21. Therefore, option (B) is incorrect.
2. The "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. It must also comply with the principles of natural justice.
3. The order impounding Maneka Gandhi's passport did not provide any reasons and did not give her a prior hearing, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).
4. Therefore, the act of confiscating the passport was not in accordance with a procedure that was fair and just, and was thus held to be unlawful.
Option (C) accurately summarises this position: the right to go abroad is a fundamental right, but its deprivation in this case (confiscation of passport) was unlawful. (Note: The provided option in the question paper image might have a typo mentioning Article 19(1)(A), but the core finding was on Article 21 and the unlawful nature of the confiscation). Assuming the intent of the question, (C) is the best choice.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The Supreme Court held that the right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and the impounding of the petitioner's passport was arbitrary and not in accordance with a fair legal procedure.