Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The 1978 Supreme Court ruling that transformed Article 21 of the Constitution. After Maneka Gandhi, “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable — not merely formally enacted. This case is the foundation of every modern privacy, due-process and natural-justice argument, including under the RTI Act, 2005.

Not an RTI case. It was decided 27 years before the RTI Act, and is cited in RTI practice for the standard a PIO's or Commission's order must meet, not for anything it says about disclosure.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

The Government decided to impound Maneka Gandhi's passport under §10(3)© of the Passports Act, 1967. She was told by letter dated 2 July 1977, received 4 July 1977, and was refused reasons and a hearing. She challenged the impoundment under Article 32 of the Constitution.

A 7-judge Constitution Bench held:

1. Article 21 (“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”) requires the procedure to be just, fair and reasonable — not merely formally on the statute book.
2. The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
3. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive — they form a “golden triangle” that constrains state action together. A law affecting personal liberty must satisfy all three.
4. Audi alteram partem (right to be heard) is part of natural justice and applies even when the statute is silent.

Every PIO order denying RTI is state action affecting a fundamental right (the §3 right of access to information, which the Supreme Court read into Article 19(1)(a) freedom of expression in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428, and S.P. Gupta v. President of India, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87). After Maneka Gandhi:

1. The PIO's denial must be just, fair and reasonable — not merely citing §8 by rote.
2. The PIO must give reasons for the denial (per Maneka Gandhi + §7(8) of RTI Act).
3. The applicant has a right to be heard before adverse orders (mostly via the §11 third-party process or §19 appeal).

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597. Decided 25 January 1978 by a 7-judge Constitution Bench (CJI M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud, V R Krishna Iyer, P N Bhagwati, N L Untwalia, S Murtaza Fazal Ali, P S Kailasam JJ).

Cite Maneka Gandhi when the PIO's order is mechanical (“§8(1)(j) — denied”), without engagement with the public-interest balance, severability under §10, or transfer under §6(3). Pair with Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, 3 December 2007, reported 146 (2008) DLT 385, S. Ravindra Bhat J.) for procedural compliance.

• Supreme Court of India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
• Right to Information Act, 2005, §7(8) — reasons in writing for denial. Full text.
• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428. The right to know as part of Article 19(1)(a). On RTI Wiki.

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance
• CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal
• Puttaswamy v. UoI — privacy as fundamental right
• RTI Act, 2005

Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.