CourtSupreme Court of India
Decision25 January 1978
CollectionConstitutional, Writ & Administrative Law
FormatCRUX Case Note

The Crux

Article 21 is not satisfied by the mere existence of a procedure: the procedure affecting life or personal liberty must meet constitutional standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

What the Court held

The Court read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together and rejected a narrow understanding of 'procedure established by law'. State action affecting liberty must withstand the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and constitutional scrutiny.

Why it matters

The decision remains a basic reference point for due process, natural justice, administrative fairness and challenges to arbitrary State action.

CRUX practice note

This note isolates the proposition most likely to matter in practice. The precise ratio, factual limits and subsequent treatment of the authority should always be checked against the judgment itself before professional reliance.

Official source

The link below is to the Supreme Court of India’s official website or judgment repository.

Official Supreme Court source Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India — official court source The judgment text remains controlling. This CRUX note is an editorial summary for general information.

This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Back to Knowledge