Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978,Article 21 procedure,passport impoundment,natural justice India)
+metatag-title=(Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 Article 21)&metatag-description=(SC 1978: due process, natural justice, fundamental-rights interplay. Art 21 procedure must be just/fair/reasonable. The landmark due-process ruling explained.)}}
+====== 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.**
+**Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India** {{tag>supreme-court constitutional-law article-21 due-process natural-justice 1978}}
+===== The issue =====
+The Government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport on 4 July 1977 without giving her a hearing or recording reasons. She challenged the impoundment under Article 32 of the Constitution.
+===== The holding =====
+A 7-judge Constitution Bench held:
+  - **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.
+  - The **right to travel abroad** is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
+  - 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.
+  - **Audi alteram partem** (right to be heard) is part of natural justice and applies even when the statute is silent.
+===== Why this matters for RTI =====
+Every PIO order denying RTI is **state action affecting a fundamental right** (the §3 right of access to information, which the Supreme Court has linked to Article 19(1)(a) freedom of expression in *Bennett Coleman*). After Maneka Gandhi:
+  - The PIO's denial must be **just, fair and reasonable** — not merely citing §8 by rote.
+  - The PIO must give **reasons** for the denial (per Maneka Gandhi + §7(8) of RTI Act).
+  - The applicant has a right to be **heard** before adverse orders (mostly via the §11 third-party process or §19 appeal).
+===== Citation =====
+**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).
+===== Use this case in your RTI appeal =====
+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. CIC** (Delhi HC, 2008) for procedural compliance.
+===== Sources =====
+  * 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. [[:act|Full text]].
+  * **Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India** (1973) 2 SCC 788 — RTI as part of Article 19(1)(a).
+===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic|Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance]]
+  * [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal]]
+  * [[:cases:puttaswamy-v-uoi-2017|Puttaswamy v. UoI — privacy as fundamental right]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005]]
+//Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.//
+{{tag>maneka-gandhi article-21 due-process natural-justice constitution-bench 1978 rti-foundation 2026}}