Due Process of Law in the Indian Constitution
⚖️ Due Process of Law in the Indian Constitution
1. Meaning of Due Process of Law
The phrase “Due Process of Law” originally comes from the U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments).
It requires that the government must act fairly, reasonably, and justly before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
It includes procedural safeguards (fair trial, hearing, etc.) and substantive fairness (law itself must be just and reasonable).
It prevents arbitrary or oppressive action by the state, even if such action follows a written law.
2. “Procedure Established by Law” vs “Due Process of Law”
The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 originally said:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This is different from the American concept of due process.
“Procedure Established by Law” means the state can deprive liberty if it follows a law that prescribes the procedure, even if the law is harsh or unfair.
Due Process requires that the procedure itself must be fair and reasonable.
3. Early Judicial Interpretation in India
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the “procedure established by law” doctrine, rejecting the American due process concept.
The Court held that if the state follows a law properly enacted, deprivation of liberty is constitutional, regardless of fairness or reasonableness.
4. Evolution Towards Due Process in India
The rigid view changed dramatically with the Maneka Gandhi case in 1978.
The Court held that the procedure prescribed by law must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
This effectively incorporated the due process principle into Article 21.
5. Key Case Laws
A. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
The Court adopted the narrow view of Article 21.
It said the law need only prescribe a procedure, and the courts would not inquire into the fairness of the procedure.
This meant no substantive due process was recognized.
B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Landmark case changing the interpretation.
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without adequate explanation or hearing.
The Court held:
Article 21's procedure must be “right, just and fair”.
This procedure must also comply with Article 14 (equality before law).
Thus, the Court expanded the meaning of “procedure established by law” to include principles of natural justice and reasonableness.
It merged due process with the Indian constitutional scheme, though not by name.
C. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
The Court reaffirmed that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 implies a fair, just and reasonable procedure.
It also recognized right to livelihood as part of life under Article 21.
6. Significance of Due Process in Indian Law
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Substantive Protection | Law and procedure must be reasonable, fair |
| Procedural Protection | Right to fair hearing, opportunity to be heard |
| Interlinked with Article 14 | No arbitrary, discriminatory laws or procedures |
| Judicial Review | Courts can strike down unfair laws and procedures |
| Broadened Fundamental Rights | Protects life and liberty beyond mere procedure |
7. Summary
Initially, Indian courts followed the British “procedure established by law” model — law can deprive life/liberty if it follows the procedure laid down by the law.
After Maneka Gandhi, the courts adopted a broader approach similar to “due process,” insisting laws and procedures must be fair, reasonable, and just.
This evolution has strengthened the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
The doctrine of due process in India is unique, blending procedural legality with substantive justice.
8. Conclusion
Due Process in Indian constitutional law is not explicitly mentioned but is implied through the judicial interpretation of Article 21 and its integration with Article 14. The Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation ensures that the government cannot deprive any person of life or liberty arbitrarily or unfairly, even if a procedure is prescribed by law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments