Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The landmark case of a.k. Gopalan v. State of madras, where the indian supreme court interpreted the concept of 'procedure established by law' under article 21 of the indian constitution. The case challenged the validity of preventive detention under the preventive detention act, 1950, and its impact on the fundamental rights of an individual. The document delves into the historical context, the arguments presented, and the court's judgement, which had significant implications for the interpretation of fundamental rights in india.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Ayillyath kuttiari Gopalan, a communist leader was detained in madras jail under preventive Detention Act, 1950. every time his sentence was being set aside. He was under detention since 1947.This case was first of its kind, where different articles of the Constitution of India were discussed thoroughly. And while he was still under detention, be filed a petition before the Supreme court under Article 32 of the constitution, to grant him writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner ‘s contention was that on 1st^ March, 1950, he was served with a fresh order of detention under preventive Detention Act, 1950 by the madras government and which seemed unjustifiable to him. He questioned the validity of this particular act in his petition and contended that provisions of this Act are in contravention to his rights under Article 13, 19, 21 and Article 22. He also questioned that his detention was violating his right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the constitution, which itself is a essence of Article 21 which is right to life and personal liberty. But the court took narrower view in this judgement and held that the petitioner's detention was not abridging his any right under Article 19 and 21 either, and these two rights are not linked or connected. And in the same judgment, court held that a “law" cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the ground that it lacks natural justice or due procedure. And it was first case where court said that the phrase “Procedure established by law" mentioned under Article 21 is different from “due process of law" which is phrase from American constitution, this was discussed because the provision of life and liberty is taken from American constitution and drafters of Indian constitution used the phraseology of procedure established by law instead of due process by law, because it is quite vague. this judgement was delivered by the first chief justice of independent India that is Harilal Kania. The Supreme Court overruled it ‘s decision after almost thirty years in Maneka Gandhi's case. INTERNATIONAL LAWS REGARDING LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY As Indian constitution guarantees protection of life and liberty under Article 21. Life and personal liberty have different meanings from the view point of international and foreign laws. Article 21 of the Indian constitution is in correspondence with the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment of the American constitution and Constitution of japan, 1946 which grants it under Article 40(4).
This right is enshrined under part - III of the Indian constitution that is Fundamental rights. Specifically, under Article 21. This Article reads as “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law". Since the word “person" has been used under this article so this right is available to citizens and non-Citizens both. Although this right does not grant the right to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(d). Personal liberty cannot be taken away unless the procedure established by law has been followed. PROCEDURE ESTABLISHEDBY LAW AND DUEPROCESS OFLAW Due process of law was originally part of the Indian constitution but B.N. Rau, who was part of the drafting committee of the constitution met Justice Frankfurter and changed this phrase to the actual phrase, which is used under Article 21 that procedure established by law. In the judgement of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950] AIR 27 (SC) , Supreme court took a narrow and a literal view to Article 21 to interpret it. By stating that the expression “Personal Liberty" is merely the protection of one's bodily parts which means the state cannot harm an individual’s body. And court held that, Article 19 and Article 21 are not linked or have no relation. And it also held that the American phrase “Due process of law" connotes that the procedure should be fair and reasonable but the phrase “Procedure established by law" enshrined under Indian constitution has different meaning, it is only concerned with the procedure followed. it simply means that whatever the procedure, the parliament or legislature specifies, if that procedure is not followed only then the courts can strike it down. But after almost 30 years this decision was overruled in the judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] AIR 597(SC) , Court took wider approach of the Article 21 and stated that Article 19 and Article 21 are connected to each other and belongs to the same class of rights. It held that liberty and personal liberty has no difference, and in personal liberty all the aspects of liberty are included. It further held that, if legislature passes any law which seeks to deprive life or liberty of an individual, then, it needs to be fair and reasonable. Thus, court reads the phraseology of American constitution under Article 21 that is “Due process of law". FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT This right is enshrined under Article 19 (1) (d) of Indian Constitution. The main objective behind bringing this clause was to have a feeling of nationality a feeling of oneness among the
people of India. The Clause states that Indian citizen can move throughout Indian territory without any restriction. However, this right has been limited under clause 5 of the Article 19, where two restrictions are provided firstly, in the interest of general public this right can be curtailed and secondly, in the protection of Scheduled Tribes, this right can be curtailed. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963] AIR 1295(SC) Supreme court of India held that the right of being able to move freely means the right to locomotion, which simply means that the one has right to move freely wherever one likes, however one likes. Another case related to Freedom of movement is State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalaya [1964] AIR 416(SC) in this case, Supreme court held that the right to move freely can be restricted if it is about prostitutes, and certain restrictions can be imposed upon them concerning public health and the interest of the public morals. ARTICLE 13 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION This Article talks about four principles relating to fundamental rights. Article 13(1) is about pre-constitutional laws, laws which are inconsistent with fundamental rights will be void. It provides two doctrines; these are doctrine of severability or separability and doctrine of eclipse. DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY OR SEPARABILITY According to this doctrine if in any act some part is constitutional while other part is unconstitutional, then, the part which is unconstitutional should be stricken off and constitutional part should be preserved. In the judgement of A.K. Gopalan, in this the preventive detention act, 1950 was challenged by the petitioner. In this act, there is one particular section, which is, section 14, according to this section, a person who is detained could not disclose his grounds of detention in the court. So, this section was against fundamental rights. In the light of doctrine of severability, Section 14 of preventive detention act, 1950 was declared invalid and remaining act was valid. DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE The literal meaning of eclipse is to hide. In the case of Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1955] AIR 781(SC) , Berar motor vehicle Act was challenged, in this act there were certain provisions which empowered state government to take over entire motor transport business. So after the enforcement of fundamental rights, these provisions became violative of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. According to doctrine of eclipse, these provisions of Motor Vehicle Act became inoperative, and doctrine lead prevalence of fundamental rights over these
Right to consult a legal practitioner, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [1979] AIR 1369 (SC) , the supreme court held that if the accused person is not able to afford or appoint a legal practitioner then, he has this constitutional right to demand a legal practitioner from the state. Article 22(2) it discusses two things, first, right to be produced before a magistrate, the individual who is in custody has to be produced before magistrate within 24 hours, travel and necessary time remain excluded. Second, no detention beyond 24 hours, if arrested person is not being produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, then, that person must be released from custody.
Natural justice is the collection of basic human rights, the aim of which is to bring justice to both the parties naturally. Natural justices focus on two rules; those are –
It can be concluded that Right to life and personal liberty is not only guaranteed under Indian Constitution but also internationally recognized on the basis of principles of natural justice. A.K. Gopalan judgement is considered as one of the landmark judgements in the history of Indian judiciary, because it was the first case of its kind just after the independence. There was a questioned raised over Article 21 of the constitution. But the Supreme court of India took very narrow interpretation of the Article 21 and held that procedure established by law should be followed, Court refused to consider that if the appliance of procedure established by law suffers from any deficiencies. But, after almost three decades, Court overruled this decision in the Maneka Gandhi Case of 1978. Court reinterpreted Article 21 by taking wider view and also held that procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable. It can be suggested that court must give provide proper legal representation to the person whose right to life and liberty has been restricted by way of preventive detention. In the present Scenario, ignorance of any one's freedom and anybody’s rights may lead to serious repercussions such as protests by the public, so, court must sometimes be flexible while delivering such kind of judgements.
