2.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: Right to hearing.
This is because the leading decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India was that the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to go abroad, and the government cannot deprive a person of this right without giving him an opportunity to be heard and to make a representation against the order. The court also ruled that the principles of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem (hear the other side), are an integral part of the procedure established by law. The court further expanded the scope of Article 21 by holding that it is not to be read in isolation, but in conjunction with Articles 14 and 19, which guarantee the rights to equality and freedom of speech and expression, respectively. The court thus established the doctrine of the golden triangle, which implies that these three articles are interrelated and interdependent, and any law affecting one of them must satisfy the requirements of the other two. The court also observed that the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberty of a person. The court overruled the narrow interpretation of Article 21 given in the earlier case of A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras, and adopted a dynamic and purposive approach to the interpretation of fundamental rights. The case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India is thus a landmark judgment that marked a paradigm shift in the constitutional jurisprudence of India and ushered in a new era of human rights and social justice.