Introduction :-
About AK Gopalan
K. Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained in the Madras Jail under Preventive Detention Act,1950 and challenged his detention by stating that his civil liberty was being hampered as he had the right to equality of law. A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950)
A K Gopalan v State of Madras was a significant decision because it represented the first case where the Supreme Court meaningfully examined and interpreted key fundamental rights enlisted in the constitution including article 19 and 21..
Facts:-
In this case, a petition was filed by the applicant A. K Gopalan, who was a communist leader under article 32 (1) of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas Corpus against his detention in the Madras jail.
In the petition he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December 1947. He had been sentenced to imprisonment but the convictions was set aside. While he was under detention under one of the Other orders of the Madras state government he was served with an order made under section 3 (1) of the preventive detention act 1950
He challenged the legal entity of the order and contended that the same controller when it says the provision of article 13 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further confirmed that the provisions of this act were not in accordance with article 22 of the constitution.
Article 19- speech/expression/movement/trade
Article 21- life and personal liberty
Article 22- detention laws
He contended that the provision of the preventive detention act 1950 Transgress and thus amount to a violation of the fundamental rights under article 13 19 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Issues
- Whether the detention act of Madras a state contravene the provision of article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- whether the state’s detention act 1950 provision in accordance with article 22 of the Indian Constitution?
Issue 1
Punitive and preventive detention were outside the Ambit of article 19 of the constituent of India and hence the preventive detention act 1950 had not violated it. It was also contended by the court that this said article which provide protection to citizens who are free therefore, not the citizen whose freedom is restrained by law and the question of enforcing article 19 (1) does not arise.
The words which are the same in two different provisions cannot be understood in the same light and considered it has that the words have the same meaning and respect to the contention raised by the petitioner of the violation of the fundamental right under article 21 and the meaning and usage of the words “ procedure established by law” does not amount to main “due process” if the legislature would have meant that these two words have the same meaning or refer to the same thing the framers of the Constitution would have expressed it clearly
“ To read the word “law” as meaning rules of natural justice will land one in the difficulties because the rules of natural justice, as regards procedure, are now where defined and in my opinion the constitution cannot be read as laying down a vague standard To read the word law as meaning rules of natural justice will land on the difficulties because the rules of natural justice as regards prosody are now where defined and in my opinion the constitution cannot be read as laying down vague standard.
Issue 2
Various provisions of the preventive detention act 1950 are covered under article 22 and those which are not added through the aspect of article 21.
The apex court held that section 3 of the Act was justified and as it was valid to provide such discretionary powers to the executive.
It was held that none of the sections of the preventive detention act , lV of 1950 in Prince the provisions of part lll of the Constitution bearing s. 14 restricting the disclosure of the grounds of detention section 14 of the Act was declared ultra vires, nonetheless the declaration did not affect the validity of the act as a whole.
Petitioner’s Argument
The provisions of preventive detention act 1950 violated the freedom conferred to every citizen by article 19 (1) (a) to (e) and (g) and the IMP and law under the act for of 1950 did not satisfy the test of article 19 (2) article(6) the petitioners right of free speech as and where he wanted was taken away.
They believed that article 19(1) and the article 21 should be read together as the substantive rights to the citizen are dealt in Article 19(1) and the procedural aspects of the personal liberty are built in article 21 and the deprivation of life and personal liberty of a person except the process dual established by law.
The words “procedure established by law” does not refer for main any form of Legislation (Lex) but is means nothing less than the due process of law( jus) that needs to be followed and is thus vocative of article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has relied upon the constitution of the United State of America the corresponding provision is found in the fifth and fourteenth amendments where the provision.
Respondent’s Argument
The respondent argued that section 19 and 21 should not be read together and should be read by itself. The article mentioned in 19(1) (a) and to (g) also should be considered separately from a different point of view of a similar right in the other citizen.
The urged that the words “ procedure established by law” is adopted by the Japanese constitution to avoid the usage of the word “due process’ and this has a different meaning of both words., it, therefore, is not voilative of article 21. The interpretation of the word “due process” of law as in the United States of America Constitution was taken up as law including both the substantive rights and process rights is not required to be taken in the Indian courts and no justification to adapt will stand sufficient to the court the debates of the drafting committee were also referred and relied upon by the respondents in respect of the wording of the clouds in the older to clear the doubts of ambiguity.
Judgement
- The Act was declared to be intra wires to the constitution of India,
- article 21 is applicable to the provision of this act
- Section 12 and section 14 word declared to be Ultra wires of the Constitution of India
- The said act also permits the detention beyond the period of three months
- Also it is not necessary for the Parliament to prescribe the maximum period of detention
Dissenting Opinion (4:2)
Justice Faisal Ali was in stark contrast to the opinion of the majority of judges according to him the phrase “process dual established by law” as in under article 21 of the Constitution of India should be interpreted liberally he was also of the view Unlike the majority that Fundamental Rights in Article 19 are read with article 21 and article 22 which discusses the procedural right of the same
“ there is however no authoritive have opinion available to support the view that this freedom is anything different from what is otherwise called personal liberty. I am confirmed in my view that the justice conception that personal liberty and freedom of movement cannot the same thing is the correct and true conception and the other words used in Article 19(1) (d) must be constructed according to this universally accepted legal conception”.
The judgement given by the majority judges was, an attempt by them to expound the jurisprudence of a new constitution for people who just got independence from Colonial rule.
They held that the law of prescribing the detention was preventive in the interest of the general public and so it does not required to satisfy the taste of reasonableness even if it overlap the fundamental rights as provided in the constitution of India.
Laws Involved
• Article 13, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India
• Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950
• 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America
• The Constitution of Japan
Conclusion
In the AK Gopalan case, the Court had interpreted Article 21 extremely literally and went on to affirm that the expression procedure established by law meant any procedure which was laid down in the statute by the competent legislature that could deprive a person of his life or personal liberty.
It is however in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (2) in the year 1977 that the dissenting opinion of Justice Fazal Ali was upheld. Apex Court held that the reasonableness of the procedure established by law should be reviewed by the court so that it is reasonable, just and fair and is free from any arbitrariness. Justice Bhagwati held that the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 has the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge