Introduction
Before the Maneka Gandhi case[1] in 1978, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India undertook a positivist approach while deciding all the cases. The parliament makes laws. The judiciary is perceivable as a pillar of democracy which sticks to the literal meaning of the constructed law. During this case, the Supreme Court emerged as a savior of democracy. It was against the inconsistent laws pass by the parliament that violate the fundamental rights of the people. Wary of the politicians and their ways to fulfill their agendas. The Court changed its approach towards the cases thereby reinstating the citizen’s faith in the democratic structure of the nation.
Facts of the Case
The passport of the petitioner which the Government of India impounds. It is in “the interest of the general public” under Sec 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 without furnishing to her the statement of reasons for such an order. Supreme Court has held in Satwant Singh’s[2] case that the right to go abroad was a part of “personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was plead that Sec 10(3)(c) is arbitrary and should be struck down. This section reads as follows:
“The Passport Authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document. If the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with the foreign country or in the interests of the general public”
This section was unreasonable and arbitrary as it did not lay down any procedure for impounding or revoking a passport. The right to hear was not given to the party whose passport was being impounded or revoked. Thereby being in contravention of the principle of natural justice, “Audi Alteram Partim”. Hence, it was argue from the petitioner’s side that this section infringed upon Art 14, Art 19(1)(a), Art 19(1)(g), and Art 21 of the Constitution.
Comprehensive interpretation to Article 21
The doctrine of separability of subject matters in fundamental rights is given by the court in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.[3] It holds that Article 19 and 21 protected or regulated flows in different channels. However, this view of creating watertight compartments amongst the fundamental rights gets rightly overruled in the Maneka Gandhi case. Article 21 had comprehensive interpretations and the due process of law was unoccupied for most of them. The procedural, as well as, substantive laws formulate for covering such lacunae in the vast sphere of Article 21. It must pass the tests of Article 14 and Article 19.
The golden triangle evolved
Hence, the golden triangle of Art 14, Art 19, and Art 21 evolved in this landmark judgment. Emphasis was given to the view that the constitution is treatable as an integrated whole and not as disconnected parts within a whole. These fundamental rights intermingle and overlap with each other to ensure that there is application of the due process of law. The Supreme Court laid down that the waters must mix to constitute a grand flow of unhindered and impartial justice, equality, freedom, and fraternity.
‘Procedure established by law’ & ‘due process of law’ are same
Hence, Article 21 reads as “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law”. The interpretation of “procedure established by law” in Article 21 was deliberate in this case. The Supreme Court held in A.K. Gopalan’s case that “procedure established by law” and American phrase “due process of law” were distinct notions. The judiciary could not test the reasonableness of the law passed by elected representatives of the people in the parliament. It meant that any laws duly enacted by the government could not be questioned in the court of law, even if the legislation were in contravention to principles of natural justice and equity.
This decision was also overturned in the Maneka Gadhi case. The court went on to broaden the horizons of judicial interpretation further. And they gave the ruling that the above-stated clauses were similar to each other in terms of their meaning. The procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. The court held that any law that is arbitrary and fanciful is not a law at all.
Judgement
The judgment delivered was quite dispassionate and balanced. The court denied contentions of the petitioner and held that Section 10(3)(c) and Section 5 of the Passport Act 1967 were consistent with the principles of natural justice as the provisions were just and reasonable. Their validity was upheld because Section 5 mandates the government to furnish a brief state of reasons for its actions in writing unless in certain exceptional circumstances that included interests of the general public, security of State, and so on. The prime reason given by the respondents, in this case, was that the presence of petitioner is require for proceedings before the Shah Commission Enquiry. It was also assure that the appearances would conclude expediently. Hence, the provisions of the said Act were not violative of fundamental rights are they were non-arbitrary.
Conclusion
This judgment demonstrated a tectonic shift in the approach adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This shift was from a positivist approach to a normative one. The positivist approach treated law as a command of the sovereign that had to be abided by as it is. However unjust it may be. The normative approach is much more evolved. It goes to the root cause of the law by checking the rationale behind its enactment and whether the objective is being achieve.
The law is no longer dictates at the whims and fancies of the ruling party motivated with political intentions. Instead, the judiciary acted as a defender of individual rights by making the laws open to scrutiny. The golden triangle of Art 14, Art 19, and Art 21 are mutually inclusive. Any law passed by the government had to meet the tests of reasonableness, intelligible differentia, rationale nexus, non-arbitrariness, direct effect test, and so on. These tests became apparent in the subsequent cases. This apparatus assisted the Supreme Court to protect. As well as bolster the necessary individual rights of people in our nation.
References:
[1] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
[2] Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors , 1967 AIR 1836
[3] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27
0 Comments