The historic ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, which postures as a barricade of the Right of Personal Liberty granted by Art. 21 of the Constitution, began when the passport of the petitioner, was confiscated by the authorities under the provisions of the Passport Act. This arbitrary act of seizing the passport ultimately led to the announcement of an undisputed verdict by a 7-judge bench of the top most court of the country.

This case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI[1] pacts with the straightforward values of natural justice conserved in the constitution of Republic of India in the method of basic rights under art. 14 & 21 correspondingly. Formerly this case art. 21 guaranteed the right to life and personal liberty in contradiction of the illogical movements of the administrative lone but subsequently this case, art 21 promises the partial and illogical activities of law-making too.

At this point, a subject of disagreement ascended amid the parties once the passport establishments confiscated the passport of the plaintiff, deprived of smooth revealing the declaration of details to her. By way of they responded her that it was distributed by M/o EA on the orders of administration. Distressed party thus marched a writ petition in the Apex Court under art. 32 of the constitution stimulating the succeeding act of the establishments as disrespecting her basic rights given below art. 21 of the constitution concerning the stuff.

Captivating into art. 14, art. 21 & rule of Audi alteram partem, the court of law detected here contravention of subsequent rights & sec.10 (3) c of the PP Act, 1967 was acknowledged cancelled in this circumstance as was deliberating a random power and was also offensive of art. 21 as it did not stretch any right to extra party such as to catch the additional party, conferring to procedure established by law, before the passport was confiscated. Meanwhile afterward this case, the doctrine of post- decisional theory was progressed.
Issues:
The matters deliberated in this case were as follows

1. Whether art. 21 in its realm shelters the right to visit foreign country as a fragment of it
2. Whether the sec.10 (3) (c) of PP Act by way it's cited in art. 21 suggest a procedure before the contravention of their fundamental right?
3. Whether the sec.10 (3) (c) of the PP Act is constitutionally binding?
4. Whether the limitations obligatory by the Passport Consultant were in misbehavior of code of natural justice?

THE JUDGEMENT IN A NATURAL LAW PERSPECTIVE
The natural law viewpoint occupies a vital place in the kingdom of politics, law, religion and beliefs from the original eras. The situation has occupied themselves the part of encouraging peacetime & impartiality in dissimilar periods and endangered community against unfairness, oppression and mishandling.

Acclaiming the purpose of natural law in redeeming people from political legal chaos and drawing its development, Blackstone detected:
"The natural law being co-existent with mankind and emanating from God Himself, is superior to all other laws. It is binding over all the globe in all countries and at all the times and no man-made law will be valid if it is contrary to the law of nature".[2]

The documentation of natural law with Divine will may consume, fairly reasonably, disappeared at a period when people see God, if they understand one wherever at all, in the uppermost making's characteristic in the nature of Man himself. But the idea of a natural law as an ethically unavoidable assume of a just order, identifying the absolute and essential human rights of all beings as equals beforehand the law perseveres. The situation is, entrenched in our particular Constitution.

Besides these may be condensed to 3 main trainings; the right of own security, the right of individual liberty, and the right of cloistered property, since, as here is no additional recognized technique of pressure, or shortening men accepted allowed will, but by a contravention or decrease of one or additional of these vital rights, the protection of these, unaltered, may impartially be said to comprise the protection of our public protections in their main and most wide wisdom.

1. The right of personal security involves in an individual's permissible and nonstop satisfaction of his lifespan, his appendages, his body, his wellbeing and his status.
    
2. Subsequent to private safety, the law of UK esteems, proclaims, and conserves the particular authorization of entities. This own freedom involves in the influence of loco gesture, of altering state, or touching one's being to whatever place one's individual sensation may straight, deprived of custody or limit, if by due sequence of law.
    
3. The third base is that of property; which contains in the allowed usage, pleasure, and discarding of all his attainments, deprived of any switch or lessening, except only by the rules of the terrestrial. The unique of pvt. stuff is probably originated in nature, as will be supplementary wholly clarified in the subsequent tome of the succeeding explanations; but positively, the modifications below which we at fashionable find it, the process of keeping it in the present-day possessor, and of decoding it from bloke to bloke, are totally resultant from culture; and are around of individuals civil compensations, in chat for which every individual has resigned a part of his natural liberty

Conclusion
This decision was a self-possessed verdict and is the single-most legendary verdicts that Republic of Indian SC has ever produced & unsurprisingly has become the landmark judgment in the constitutional development of India. The verdict's utmost feature was the interweaving it recognized amid the necessities of the golden triangle in the holy constitution. With the asset of this connection the law court made these supplies devoted and a solitary object.

The verdict though protected the nations from undisputable movements of administrative section also protected the holiness of jurisdictive law once it did not raid down s.10(3)(c) & 10(5) of the Act which came up in the year 1967. The court of law also repeated the establishments to lone hardly use the privilege of sec. 10(5) so as to gratify that their movements were balanced and well supposed. It was held that sec. 10(3)(c) and 10(5) is a managerial instruction so, exposed to test on the lands of bad-intentioned, irrational, renunciation of natural justice and ultra vires.

The ruling's rank can be realized nowadays also subsequently the manner in which the bench interpreted Art. 21 and prolonged its scenarios has assumed way for the deciding of glitches left unexplained from the side of Legislature. The situation moderately obvious that this verdict has displayed itself in an authoritative part in interpreting Right to hygienic air, water, right to freedom from Noise Pollution, Speedy Trial, Standard Education, Fair Trial, Legal Aid, Right to Livelihood, Right to Food, Right to Medical Care, Right to Clean Environment etc., as a part of Right to Life & Personal liberty mentioned u/a 21. 

End-Notes:

1. AIR 1978 SC
2. Blackstone: Commentaries, Introduction, p.39.
   
   
   Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Yash Sharma
   

   Authentication No: SP126910033385-26-0921