Quick answer
Under A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (19 May 1950), the majority read "procedure established by law" in Article 21 to mean procedure laid down by a law made by the State, refusing to import the American idea of "due process", and treated each fundamental right as a separate compartment. That is no longer the law. After R.C. Cooper (1970) rejected the compartment approach and Maneka Gandhi (1978) held that the procedure must be "fair, just and reasonable", merely following an enacted procedure does not make a deprivation of liberty constitutional.
The case
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88, Supreme Court of India, 19 May 1950. Six judges: H.J. Kania, CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea and S.R. Das, JJ. Gopalan, held in Madras jail under preventive detention (detention to prevent a feared future act, not punishment for a completed offence), petitioned for habeas corpus under Article 32, challenging the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 under Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22. Held (Fazl Ali and Mahajan, JJ dissenting on the result): apart from Section 14, the Act was valid and the detention was not illegal; the petition was dismissed.
What the Court held
- Meaning of "law" in Article 21: per Kania, CJ, Mukherjea and Das, JJ, "law" means State-made law, not natural justice in the abstract, and "procedure established by law" is not the American "due process of law". Patanjali Sastri, J read it as well-established criminal procedure; Fazl Ali, J dissented and read in notice, hearing and an impartial tribunal.
- Separate compartments: the majority held that Article 19 does not apply to a law directly relating to preventive detention; such a law is tested under Articles 21 and 22.
- Section 14 struck down: all six judges held that Section 14 of the Act, which barred the detenu from disclosing to the court the grounds of detention or his representation, violated Article 22(5) and was void. It was severable, so the rest of the Act survived.
Gopalan versus Maneka Gandhi
| Point | A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Maneka Gandhi (1978) |
|---|---|---|
| "Procedure established by law" | Any procedure in a validly enacted State law | Procedure must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive |
| Relation between rights | Articles 19, 21 and 22 operate separately | Articles 14, 19 and 21 are read together |
| Natural justice | Not part of Article 21 (majority) | Part of a fair procedure |
How the law changed
- R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) overruled the majority's assumption that each Article deals exclusively with its own subject. Maneka Gandhi recorded that this "doctrine of exclusivity" had been overruled.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (25 January 1978) held that a law depriving a person of personal liberty must prescribe a fair, just and reasonable procedure and must also satisfy Articles 14 and 19. See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
- In Puttaswamy (2017) the nine-judge bench said Kharak Singh's reliance on the Gopalan majority was not the correct position in view of Cooper and Maneka.
- Preventive detention itself remains permitted, subject to the safeguards in Article 22.
Aadil is detained under a preventive detention law that is properly enacted but forbids him from showing the court the grounds of his detention. Even in 1950, such a bar was struck down as violating Article 22(5). Today a court would also ask whether the whole procedure is fair, just and reasonable under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Exam point
Gopalan (1950): narrow reading of Article 21 and the compartment theory; Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 struck down. Displaced by R.C. Cooper (1970) and Maneka Gandhi (1978): procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
