Author
Dr Raeesa Vakil
Organisation/Institution
National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law
Country
SINGAPORE
Panel
Constitutional and Admin Law
Title
A Passport to Travel the World- Maneka Gandhi in Comparative Context
Abstract
The Indian Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India fundamentally changed judicial review in India by invoking substantive due process in place of narrow procedural protection, and expanding the scope of constitutional rights. Yet, close readings of the case demonstrate gaps between the Court’s expansive invocation of liberties and judicial power, and a more restrained approach to the remedies it enforced. While it is cited widely in defence of expansive exercise of judicial power, Maneka Gandhi also illustrates how judges navigate politically complex questions under public scrutiny, and manage the challenges of executive compliance. Maneka Gandhi required the court to examine the executive act of impounding a passport: in the years since, the judgment has travelled beyond borders, and is now cited in other common law jurisdictions in service of a variety of jurisprudential outcomes. This paper situates Maneka Gandhi in comparative context, examining how Asian jurisdictions have engaged with the Indian Supreme Court’s holdings on rights and review. In Malaysia, the Court of Appeal relied on Maneka Gandhi in Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan to expand personal liberty and equality. Malaysian judges reasoned that constitutional similarities justified the borrowing – a conclusion that scholars and later cases have contested. By contrast, in Singapore, courts have rejected reliance on Maneka Gandhi, specifically invoking differences in constitutional text. jurisdictions, as well as socio-economic conditions and judicial approaches. Through a close reading of these cases, I examine how courts reason their engagement with foreign jurisprudence, drawing from constitutional documents, history, context, and judicial philosophies. More broadly, the paper contributes to an understanding of how common law courts understand and apply precedents in comparative context, emphasizing gaps between judicial rhetoric and enforceable remedies.
Biography
Dr. Raeesa Vakil studied at the National Law School of India University, and practiced law for several years in Indian courts, including the Supreme Court of India. She researched constitutional questions concerning local government at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi before earning an LL.M. and J.S.D. from Yale Law School, where her doctoral thesis analysed judicial review over Indian administrative and regulatory tribunals. She has previously published on subjects including constitutional court jurisdiction, regulatory states, judicial review, and administrative adjudication in the International Journal of Constitutional Law, Studies in Indian Politics, and the Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. She's currently a researcher at the Centre for Asian Legal Studies, and teaches constitutional and administrative law at the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore.
