Supreme Court of India

MANEKA GANDHI versus UNION OF INDIA

Decided: 25 January 1978
Judges listed: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[1978] 2 S.C.R. 621 · 1978 INSC 16

Also cited as

(1978) 1 SCC 248 (373 citing judgments)
AIR 1978 SC 597 (209 citing judgments)
MANU/SC/0133/1978 (24 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 174 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

MANOHAR LAL versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 12 March 2026 · bench of 2 judges
VIBHOR GARG versus NEHA 14 July 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 11
P. RAMMOHAN RAO versus K. SRINIVAS AND ORS. ETC. 13 February 2025 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 45
SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 4 February 2025 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 10
KRISHNADATT AWASTHY versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 29 January 2025 · bench of 3 judges · cites it at para 47

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph¶

Having regard to the majority view, and, in view of the statement made by the learned Attorney-General to which reference has already been made in the judgments we do not think it necessary to formally interfere with the impugned order. We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Petition without passing oany formal order. The passport 'Nill remain in the custody of the Registrar of this Court until further orders. There will be no order as to costs. P.H.P.

p. 776, margin C