This article is written by Shraddha Jain, a student of the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad. This article discusses the concept of procedure established by law and how its interpretation has changed from case to case.
This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution uses the phrase “procedure established by law”. It signifies that if a law has been passed by the Parliament by following the proper procedure, then it will be a valid law. Implementing this concept indicates that a person might be deprived of his life or personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. After the judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Indian judiciary adopted a liberal meaning of the phrase procedure established by law to make it equivalent to the American concept of due process of law to safeguard the fundamental rights of an individual.
Different definitions of procedure established by law
The literal meaning of the phrase procedure established by law signifies that the law that has been enacted by the Parliament or the relevant authority is lawful if the proper procedure has been followed.
In the case of King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sharma (1944), the Privy Council described the procedure established by law as “the conventional and well-established criminal procedure”.
As per the Oxford Dictionary, the term ‘established’ implies “to fix, settle, initiate, or regulate by statute or contract.” The term ‘established’ implies an authority that sets the boundaries. This authority, according to the word, might be either the Parliament or a written agreement between the parties. As a result, there is no reason for assigning the definition of ‘jus’ to ‘law’ in Article 21.
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. the Government of India (1965), the Supreme Court defined the procedure established by law under Article 21 as merely following the procedure mentioned in the statute and nothing more. As a result, a person’s ‘life’ or ‘personal liberty’ might be taken away if a law has been passed as per the procedure. The exclusion of the term ‘due’, the restriction provided by the term ‘procedure,’ and the addition of the word ‘established’ highlight the concept of Parliamentary prescription in the language used in Article 21. The Constitution of India provides the Parliament with the final say in determining the law by using the words procedure established by law.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a procedure established by law under the ambit of Article 21 should be “fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary“, otherwise it will not be considered as a procedure at all, and the condition of Article 21 will not be fulfilled. Therefore, in our country, the phrase procedure established by law has achieved the same importance as the phrase due process of law in the American Constitution.
Procedure established by law and due process of law
Procedure established by law indicates that a law that has been passed by following a proper procedure is lawful even if it violates principles of fairness and equality. The rigorous attention to the procedure may increase the chance of endangering a person’s life and personal liberty. To minimise such circumstances, the Supreme Court through various judgements emphasised the significance of the due process of law.
Due Process of Law = Legal method + the procedure must be fair, just, and not arbitrary.
Difference between procedure established by law and due process of law
| Point of difference | Procedure established by law | Due process of law |
| Meaning | It means that a law passed by the Parliament would be valid if it had undergone the proper procedure. | The due process of law theory examines not only whether an existing law takes away a person’s life and personal liberty but also examines whether the law is fair, just, and not arbitrary. |
| Origin | Originated from the British Constitution. | Originated from the Constitution of the United States. |
| Provision | Article 21 of the Indian Constitution mentions the phrase procedure established by law. | The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the phrase due process of law. |
| Scope | The scope of procedure established by law is narrower. | The scope of due process of law is broad. |
| Role | To determine the legality of a statute by examining whether the procedure for establishing it has been followed properly or not. | It determines that the law in question is not arbitrary and unfair. |
| Power of judiciary | It provides limited power in the hands of the judiciary. | It provides greater power in the hands of the judiciary. |
| Protection | Procedure established by law safeguard individuals from the arbitrary actions of only the executive. | The due process of law protects individuals from both arbitrary executive and legislative action. |
| Impact of the doctrine | Strict adherence to the legal procedure raises the risk of negatively impacting life and individual liberty. | Pay attention to all the legal rights and gives personal privacy to all individuals. |
| Emphasis of the doctrine | This doctrine emphasises more on the wisdom of the legislature and the power of public belief in the nation. | The due process of law gives a wide range of power in the control of the Judiciary. |
Similarities between procedure established by law and due process of law
Although the application of the doctrine of procedure established by law and due process of law are different but there are certain similarities between them which are mentioned below:
- In the Indian polity, both the procedure established by law and the due process of law are essential principles.
- The Supreme Court is the highest court in both situations. The Supreme Court of India decides on the legality of the legislation.
- The procedure established by law is specified in the Indian Constitution and therefore is lawful in the country. However, in several recent Supreme Court decisions, the issue of due process has been brought back into focus.
Procedure established by law and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Article 21 is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is considered to be one of the most important and progressive articles in our Constitution. Article 21 can only be used whenever the ‘State,’ as defined in Article 12, deprives an individual’s life or personal liberty. As a result, infringement of the right by a private person falls beyond the scope of Article 21.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides, “No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with the procedure established by law.” At the international level, the phrase procedure established by law has also been used in relation to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution of 1946, which specifies, “No one shall be stripped of his life and personal liberty, and no criminal punishment should be levied, apart from procedure established by law.”
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees two basic rights:
- The right to life;
- The right to personal liberty.
The basic meaning of Article 21 is that the two rights mentioned above cannot be taken away without following the proper procedure. This means that the above rights, i.e., life and personal liberty, can be taken away if the legislature follows the proper procedure. The ambit of this concept was expanded in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which will be addressed later in this article.
Judicial pronouncements on the procedure established by law
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India (1965), AK Gopalan, a political leader, was arrested in Madras under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He claimed that the action taken under the Prevention Detention Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. He also claimed that the phrase procedure established by law in Article 21 refers to due process of law. In his case, the procedure followed was not proper, resulting in a breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that if the government takes away an individual’s freedom in accordance with the procedure established by law, i.e., if the imprisonment was done by following the proper procedure, then it will not be considered a breach of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21 in this case. The Court took Article 21 very literally in this case and ruled that the expression procedure established by law indicates that a procedure established in a statute can take away the right to life and personal liberty.
However, in this case, Justice Fazal Ali gave a dissenting opinion. He said that the meaning of the term procedure established by law also implies the due process of law, which indicates that no one should be left without the opportunity of being heard i.e. audi alteram partum (no person shall be left unheard) since it is one of the important principles of natural justice.
The Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967) determined that the procedure established under Article 21 to deprive a person’s life and liberty has to be examined under Article 14 to check its validity and fairness. This decision started a new trend in the legal system, which was confirmed in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), in which the Supreme Court unequivocally said that the procedure followed under Article 21 must be reasonable.
In 1975, when a national emergency was imposed, the Court went against its own decision. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976), the Court upheld the detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, while rejecting Article 21 entirely. The Court ruled that during an emergency, Article 21 is deemed to be suspended (overturned by the Puttaswamy case). So, in this case, the Court will only look at the literal meaning of the procedure established by law. The Court did not acknowledge whether the act of government (MISA, 1971) was just, fair, or reasonable.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the passport of Maneka Gandhi was detained by officials under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner went to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and argued that the government’s act of seizing her passport was a clear violation of her personal liberty under Article 21. This decision greatly expanded the ambit of Article 21 and accomplished the purpose of making our country a welfare state, as mentioned in the Preamble. The Court concluded that the procedure established by law ought to be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court noted that the procedure specified by law for depriving a person of his right to life and personal liberty must be proper, reasonable, and fair, rather than discretionary, whimsical, and oppressive.
Post Maneka Gandhi judgment
In the case of Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), United States Supreme Court established the triple test to assess whether the legislation violates individual freedom or not. A law has to satisfy three tests to become a valid law. Post Maneka Gandhi’s judgment, the Supreme Court of India also adopted this test. The three tests are as follows:
- Whether there is any existing provision that allows the state to deny any person’s life and liberty;
- Whether the Parliament that has passed the concerned legislation has the authority to do so;
- Whether the assembly fulfilled the proper procedure while passing the legislation.
If a law fails to fulfil any of the abovementioned conditions, then it would be considered an arbitrary act of the state.
Conclusion
Before the Maneka Gandhi case, the extent of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was very limited. However, in the Maneka Gandhi case, the Supreme Court broadened the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by declaring that due process of law is an inherent element of procedure established by law. Moreover, an individual’s life and freedoms can be taken away only when the following requirements are satisfied:
- The law must be valid.
- There must be a proper procedure.
- That procedure should be just, fair, and not arbitrary.
If the procedure provided by law is frivolous, oppressive, or unreasonable, then it should not be considered a procedure at all. A system has to be reasonable or just in order to represent the idea of natural justice. Natural justice seeks to establish justice in the law.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is actually practised in India as a procedure established by law or due process of law?
Since 1978, the Indian judiciary has attempted to make the words procedure established by law identical with due process of law whenever it comes to protecting the rights of an individual. In the judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a procedure established by law under Article 21 should be “just, fair, and reasonable” and “not unjustifiable, fanciful, or arbitrary.” Thus, in India, the phrase procedure established by law has achieved similar importance as the phrase due process of law in the USA.
What is the principle of natural justice?
Natural justice is a fundamental idea that states that all people should be given fair and unbiased treatment. This concept mandates that judgments be decided without bias and that all parties concerned should be given an equal opportunity to be heard.
Which country has a procedure established by law?
The phrase procedure established by law seems to be borrowed from Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution.
Who introduced the procedure established by law?
The procedure of law is mentioned under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India (1978) brought forth and established the difference between the due process of law and procedure established by law.
References
- https://www.clearias.com/procedure-established-by-law-vs-due-process-of-law/
- https://www.ncertbooks.guru/difference-between-procedure-established-by-law-and-due-process-of-law/
- https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fundamental_rights/articles/Article%2021
- https://www.google.com/url?q=https://byjusexamprep.com&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1666349551966845&usg=AOvVaw0z8OvPm61-HzQajjdHQ03G
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
