Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Short case summary

In the passport-impounding dispute, the Supreme Court examined personal liberty, fair procedure and the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21. The judgment explains that procedure affecting personal liberty must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness, rather than being arbitrary. This principle is not a guarantee that every administrative decision is invalid.

Facts and constitutional issue

The petition followed the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport in the public interest and the refusal to furnish reasons. It raised the scope of personal liberty, statutory procedure and natural justice. Understanding the actual passport dispute helps avoid treating an isolated constitutional phrase as the complete outcome of the case.

Why the decision matters

The judgment links the assessment of procedure under Article 21 with the requirement against arbitrariness under Article 14 and considers the relevant freedoms under Article 19. Identify the particular opinion and passage when citing the decision: the official document contains multiple judicial opinions, not a single short rule that resolves every later dispute.

Using the case responsibly

State the government action being challenged, the liberty or freedom affected and the procedure followed. Separate the constitutional principle from the remedy you seek. This introductory note does not replace reading the relevant opinion or checking subsequent treatment and the law governing a particular notice, order or passport decision.

Official source and check scope

Case identity, decision date and the described passages were checked against the linked court document on 2026-10-25. This AI-assisted note is not individually advocate-reviewed; subsequent judicial treatment has not been reviewed.

Passage locator: Opening case metadata and passport facts, PDF page 1; Bhagwati J. on Article 21 procedure and Article 14, PDF page 54.