{"id":90650,"date":"2025-06-01T10:33:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=90650"},"modified":"2025-06-01T10:33:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:33:00","slug":"which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/","title":{"rendered":"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs."},"content":{"rendered":"

Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case, 1978 is not correct?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments.” option2=”It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19.” option3=”A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial.” option4=”The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.” correct=”option2″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC CAPF – 2021<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
\nA) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14.
\nB) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14.
\nC) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment.
\nD) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die.
\nSince the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer.
\n<\/section>\n
\n– Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21.
\n– It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
\n– Procedure under Article 21 must be ‘fair, just, and reasonable’.
\n– A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.
\n<\/section>\n
\nThe Maneka Gandhi case overruled the earlier A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras case (1950), which had interpreted Article 21 narrowly, holding that ‘procedure established by law’ meant only the procedure laid down by a statute, without requiring it to be just or reasonable. The Maneka Gandhi case imported the concept of ‘due process of law’ into the Indian Constitution by interpreting ‘procedure established by law’ to mean a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case, 1978 is not correct? [amp_mcq option1=”It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments.” option2=”It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19.” option3=”A fair trial … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionWhich one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1085],"tags":[1110,1186,1099],"class_list":["post-90650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-capf","tag-1110","tag-fundamental-rights","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nWhich one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14. B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14. C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment. D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer. - Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21. - It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21. - Procedure under Article 21 must be 'fair, just, and reasonable'. - A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14. B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14. C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment. D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer. - Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21. - It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21. - Procedure under Article 21 must be 'fair, just, and reasonable'. - A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T10:33:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.","description":"The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14. B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14. C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment. D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer. - Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21. - It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21. - Procedure under Article 21 must be 'fair, just, and reasonable'. - A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.","og_description":"The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14. B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14. C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment. D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer. - Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21. - It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21. - Procedure under Article 21 must be 'fair, just, and reasonable'. - A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T10:33:00+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/","name":"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T10:33:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T10:33:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that significantly expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. A) It was held that Article 19 and Article 21 are not watertight compartments: This is correct. The court held that the fundamental rights are not isolated but form an integrated scheme. Any law that restricts personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 (where applicable) and Article 14. B) It was held that a law coming under Article 21 may not satisfy the requirements of Article 19: This is incorrect. The judgment precisely held the opposite. The 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it must also pass the test of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of movement if a passport is impounded) and the equality principle under Article 14. C) A fair trial eliminates the biases against the accused in the trial: While the case primarily dealt with passport impoundment, the broader impact of the judgment was to introduce the concept of procedural due process into Article 21. Fair trial is a core component of a just and reasonable procedure, aiming to eliminate biases. This statement reflects the spirit of the expanded interpretation of Article 21, although not the direct context of passport impoundment. D) The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die: This is correct. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 does not extend to the right to commit suicide or the right to die. Since the question asks for the statement that is *not* correct, option B is the answer. - Maneka Gandhi case expanded the interpretation of Article 21. - It established the interconnectedness of Articles 14, 19, and 21. - Procedure under Article 21 must be 'fair, just, and reasonable'. - A law under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 and 14.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/which-one-of-the-following-statements-with-regard-to-maneka-gandhi-vs\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CAPF","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-capf\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Which one of the following statements with regard to Maneka Gandhi vs."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}