RAS question
Article 21 states that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.' In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), this was expanded to include:
Correct answer: (B) The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Article 21 was expanded to mean that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.
Explanation
Article 21 says that no person may be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The key shift in Maneka Gandhi was that the existence of a legal procedure was no longer enough. The Supreme Court of India's later discussion of the case says Article 21, after Maneka Gandhi, protects life and personal liberty unless the law and procedure for deprivation are reasonable, just and fair. It also notes that this reading infused due-process elements into Indian constitutional law. So the answer is not a mechanical reading of the words "procedure established by law"; it is the constitutional requirement that the procedure itself must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Article 21 is framed for "no person", and the Supreme Court of India describes it as protecting citizens and other persons, not only citizens.
- (C) This reverses the Maneka Gandhi position, where the case expanded Article 21 rather than excluding travel abroad from fundamental-right protection.
- (D) The issue in Maneka Gandhi was the quality of the procedure under Article 21, not an immunity of Article 21 from amendment; Article 21 can be amended under Article 368.
Concept
This tests the Fundamental Rights topic, especially Article 21 and judicial expansion of personal liberty. It recurs in RAS because Maneka Gandhi is the standard case for connecting "procedure established by law" with fairness, reasonableness and due-process values.