PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE:
- Case No : Petition No. 13 of 1950
- Jurisdiction : Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India
- Case Decided on : 19.05.1950
- Judges : CJI Hiralal Kania
- Justice Fazal Ali
- Justice Saiyid Sastri,
- Justice Patanjali Mahajan
- Justice Mehr Chand Das
- Justice Ranjan Mukherjea
Case Brief on A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 27
Introduction:
Indian Constitution, as we know, is a supreme law of our land and has been regarded as the living law because of the fact that it has been evolving as per the society and its changes. But, when did all this start? What could be the transition period for the Indian constitution and its provisions for being termed as living law? One of the important and easier examples to prove this could be article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Whenever we talk about article 21 and the interpretation of it, we should divide that period of interpretation as the pre-Maneka and post-Maneka Gandhi cases. This is because of the kind of broader interpretation adopted in the Maneka Gandhi case when compared to the AK Gopalan case. Let us look into this pre-Maneka Gandhi case, that is, the case of AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, which led us to discuss the wordings of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This article will look into to case brief on AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts of the case:
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a communist leader in Tamil Nadu. There was an order issued for the detention of this person by the state government under the provisions of the preventive detention act of 1950. As per section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention act, 1950, he was detained on March 1st, 1950, in one of the madras jails in pursuance of this government detention order. He then filed an application under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking the Supreme Court to invalidate the said order issued by the government under the act as it is malafide in nature. He challenged on the grounds that it is in contravention to articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and also noted that it is not in consonance with Article 22 of the constitution.
Laws applicable:
Following are the laws that are applicable in this case.
- Article 13 – Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
- Article 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech
- Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
- Article 22 – Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
Issues:
These are the three main issues that were framed and discussed by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court:
- Whether any law that provides for the preventive detention shall be violative of provisions relating to fundamental rights under part 3 of the constitution, especially, does it violate freedom of movement under Article 19 (1) clauses (d) of the constitution?
- Whether such a law is subject to judicial scrutiny as to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) of the constitution?
- Whether ‘due process’ under American Constitution and the term ‘procedure established by law’ is the same, and does it relate to rules of natural justice or not?
Contentions:
- Firstly, it was contended that the order is in violation of article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
- Secondly, it was argued that rights that have been provided under article 19(1) were infringed. It is stated that the detention disables the petitioner to have the right to speech and movement as per his desire, and hence the right has been infringed.
- It was also argued that the detention was not complying with the restrictions under Article 19(5), and this has to be co-related.
- Lastly, it had been contended that the Indian Constitution provides similar protection to everyone in the country, and this shall not be equated to the due process of law, which means that it covers both the substantive and procedural law, but India gives only protection of procedural law. Mere omission of the word ‘due’ shall make no difference with the interpretation under article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Decision:
Let us look into the decision of the Court in two main parts that are, the majority opinion on one hand and the dissenting opinion on the other hand by a few Judges. This way of knowing both opinions brings us to know how this had entirely changed the views in the cases that came later, especially in the Maneka Gandhi case.
- With respect to the question on article 21 and the concept of liberty, majority opinion correlated this with article 19 of the constitution and held that right to move freely within the country as provided under article 19 shall not be equated to the words – personal liberty – under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a way, it took a narrower interpretation of the term ‘liberty by stating that it means only bodily restraint of physical liberty and article 21 shall come into the picture if the detention of a person is carried out without the proper procedure established under the law and once you are arrested as per law, the right to claim personal liberty shall not be claimed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Fazal Ali dissented this by stating that the object of preventive detention is to restrict a person, and this amounts to a limitation of the right to movement conferred under article 19(1) (d).
- With respect to the validity of the said provisions and order for detention, the majority held that only the section and the act is not in contravention to the articles provided under part 3 of the Indian Constitution. So, the detention was not illegal in nature. The dissenting opinion was that, as section 12 of the act is found to be in contravention to articles of the Indian Constitution, the detention shall also be illegal.
- On Article 19, the majority held that article 19 should not be decided along with the restrictions provided under article 19(5), even in cases when a matter is relating to the infringement of rights under article 19(1). In other words, it is to state that such a violation of right shall be claimed only by freemen and not those who have been arrested or detained. On the other hand, Justice Fazal Ali stated that all the laws relating to preventive detention should pass the scrutiny mentioned under article 19(5). Thus, all detention is subject to restrictions under Article 19(5).
- Lastly and most importantly, the Court discussed the importance and relevance of due process of law and procedure established by law. The Court related the due process of law with that of the rules of natural justice (Jus Naturale), which has been provided under US laws. Court noted that this was deliberately omitted by the constituent assembly members, and they adopted the concept of procedure established by law – that is, the laws enacted by the state. Thus, due process is vague in nature, and this shall not be the same as that of procedure established by law.
