Global Impact of the Maneka Gandhi Judgment: How India’s Landmark Ruling Shaped Constitutional Law Worldwide

Introduction:
In the annals of constitutional jurisprudence, few judgments have transcended national boundaries as profoundly as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). This seminal decision by the Supreme Court of India redefined the contours of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, transforming it from a procedural safeguard into a substantive promise of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. Emerging from the tumultuous period following the Emergency, the judgment marked India’s judicial renaissance—reasserting the Constitution as a living, breathing document anchored in human dignity.

The influence of Maneka Gandhi has not remained confined to India. Its interpretive philosophy—rooted in the idea that laws must not merely exist but must also be inherently fair—has found resonance across the Commonwealth and beyond. From South Africa’s post-apartheid jurisprudence in S v Makwanyane to Malaysia’s progressive reading of “life” in Tan Tek Seng, from Kenyan High Court rulings invoking procedural fairness to Sri Lankan appellate decisions on natural justice, courts worldwide have drawn inspiration from India’s golden triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

This article traces the global trajectory of Maneka Gandhi, examining how its reasoning has been cited, adapted, and celebrated in foreign courts. It also explores the philosophical foundations that make the case uniquely exportable—a judicial philosophy that fuses textual interpretation with moral imagination. Through a comparative lens, we see how a single Indian judgment reshaped the grammar of constitutional law and continues to inform global dialogues on liberty, fairness, and human dignity.

Executive summary

Maneka Gandhi (1978) recast Article 21 as requiring that any procedure established by law must be “right and just and fair,” thereby importing a substantive reasonableness test that linked Articles 14, 19 and 21. The judgment has travelled as persuasive authority across Commonwealth jurisdictions and beyond — notably into South African, Malaysian, Kenyan and Sri Lankan jurisprudence — where courts invoke its language when developing dignity-based and procedural fairness doctrines. [Sources: Tan Tek Seng PDF; Kenya Law judgments; Sri Lanka Court of Appeal; RecordOfLaw summary of Makwanyane].

Selected foreign judgments that cite Maneka Gandhi

South Africa — S v Makwanyane and Another (1995)

Why it matters: Makwanyane is a foundational dignity-centred case; the Constitutional Court used comparative authorities — including Indian jurisprudence — to anchor a purposive reading of life and dignity. [RecordOfLaw / SAFLII].

Malaysia — Tan Tek Seng

Background: Whether “life” includes a substantive element — e.g., livelihood and procedural fairness.

“…non-arbitrariness pervades art 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by art 21 must answer the test of reasonableness… It must be ‘right and just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all…” (Tan Tek Seng, quoting Maneka Gandhi). [Tan Tek Seng PDF, pp.16].

Kenya — High Court judgments

Background: Several High Court judgments (e.g., Law Society of Kenya v AG, 2009) quote Maneka to support the implied duty to afford a hearing where state action affects rights.

“…It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute … the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied…” (Law Society of Kenya v AG, para 43). [Kenya Law PDF]

Sri Lanka — Court of Appeal (Writ 196/2020)

The court explicitly cites Maneka when addressing whether ex-post hearings can compensate for the absence of prior notice and when discussing natural justice requirements. [Court of Appeal PDF; see p.3].

Comparative Table: Who cited Maneka Gandhi and why?

Timeline — how the idea travelled

1978

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India — Article 21 reinterpreted

1995

S v Makwanyane — South Africa applies dignity framework

1996

Tan Tek Seng — Malaysia cites Maneka’s reasonableness test

2009

Kenya High Court — administrative fairness draws on Bhagwati’s test

2020–2024

Sri Lanka — Court of Appeal cites Maneka in writ matters

Philosophical and jurisprudential legacy

Maneka Gandhi is paradigmatic of a purposive, teleological method in constitutional adjudication. Rather than construe fundamental rights as isolated syllables of text, the judgment insisted on their harmonised reading — Articles 14, 19 and 21 combine to guard dignity, liberty and expression. This approach resembles strands of U.S. substantive due process and European proportionality, while retaining a distinctive post-colonial modal flavor.

Transnational constitutionalism: reciprocity and cross-fertilisation

Notably, Maneka Gandhi was itself a borrower of comparative law; Justice Bhagwati referenced Anglo-American authorities and principles of natural justice. The case thus sits at the nexus of a global dialogue: it imported comparative doctrines and later exported them as persuasive authority to other post-colonial courts.

Maneka Gandhi: doctrine distilled

1. “Procedure established by law” entails fair, just and reasonable procedure.
2. Articles 14, 19 and 21 form a “golden triangle” — rights are read harmoniously.
3. Where state action impacts liberty, courts may read procedural safeguards into statutes.
4. Human dignity and substantive fairness are central interpretive touchstones.

Critiques and limitations

While lauded for its rights-expansive vision, critics argue that Maneka risks judicial overreach by permitting courts to read broad substantive protections into textual silences. Some scholars caution against unbridled doctrinal transplantation: what works in India’s constitutional ecology may not fit seamlessly into another jurisdiction’s institutional constraints or legislative design.

References / primary documents

1. Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan — PDF (ADB repository). [Tan Tek Seng; pages quoted above].
2. Law Society of Kenya v. Attorney General — Kenya Law (online judgment; para 43 quoting Maneka Gandhi). [Kenya Law].
3. Petition No.170 of 2011 & related Kenyan High Court PDF (2015) — references to Bhagwati J.’s test from Maneka Gandhi. [Kenya High Court PDF].
4. Writ 196/2020 — Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka) PDF — quoting Maneka Gandhi on natural justice. [Sri Lanka CA PDF].
5. S v Makwanyane and Another (1995) — Constitutional Court of South Africa (primary text on SAFLII; see recordoflaw / constitutional law repositories). [SAFLII / RecordOfLaw].