A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark case A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras [1950 SCR 88] remains a cornerstone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly regarding the interpretation of Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. This case marked the first constitutional challenge to a law on the basis of the newly adopted Fundamental Rights and laid down the principles for understanding the scope and limitations of preventive detention in India.

The petitioner, a prominent communist leader, challenged his continued detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, asserting that it violated several of his fundamental rights including personal liberty under Article 21, freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), and the procedural guarantees under Article 22. The majority judgment upheld the validity of the Act (except for Section 14) and drew a sharp distinction between Articles 21 and 19, rejecting the doctrine of interrelated rights, which was later overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248].

The majority held that “procedure established by law” in Article 21 referred to any law duly enacted and did not include natural justice or substantive due process. The case underscored textual literalism and avoided drawing upon American jurisprudence regarding “due process of law.”

Section 14 of the Act was struck down for violating Article 22(5), as it prohibited a detainee from disclosing the grounds of detention to the Court—a clear breach of procedural rights. However, the rest of the Act was held to be valid and Section 14 was severable, allowing the remainder to stand.

Keywords: Preventive Detention, Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Personal Liberty, Due Process, Article 22(5), Procedure Established by Law

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras

ii) Case Number:
Petition No. XIII of 1950

iii) Judgement Date:
19th May 1950

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India (Original Jurisdiction under Article 32)

v) Quorum:
Harilal Kania C.J., Saiyid Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das JJ.

vi) Author:
Multiple opinions authored by different Justices

vii) Citation:
AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 19 – Right to freedom

• Article 21 – Right to personal liberty

• Article 22 – Rights of detainees

• Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies

• Preventive Detention Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 7, 10-14

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None at the time; but this judgment was later significantly diluted and overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248].

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Human Rights, Public Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The post-independence Indian Republic faced ideological instability and political turbulence, particularly with the rise of revolutionary leftist movements. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was one of the first contentious legislations enacted under the new Constitution. The case arose from the preventive detention of A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, who had been previously detained under various laws but was then re-arrested under the newly passed Preventive Detention Act on 1st March 1950.

The petitioner moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the Act as ultra vires of the Constitution on the grounds that it infringed upon his fundamental rights under Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22.

This case was the first major test of constitutional rights in India and involved deep analysis of the structure and scheme of the Indian Constitution. It triggered a doctrinal debate over the relationship between Fundamental Rights, especially between Articles 19 and 21, and invoked comparative constitutional analysis with American jurisprudence.

The Court had to decide whether the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act conformed to the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and if preventive detention could be considered reasonable or valid in light of the new constitutional order.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• A.K. Gopalan, a political activist, had been detained multiple times since 1947 under the ordinary criminal law.

• His convictions were set aside, but he remained in detention due to fresh orders issued under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

• The petitioner claimed the detention violated his right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d), his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and his procedural safeguards under Article 22.

• He also invoked Article 13, arguing that the Preventive Detention Act was inconsistent with the Constitution and hence void.

• Significantly, Section 14 of the Act prohibited the disclosure of detention grounds or representations made by detainees—making judicial review near impossible.

• The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 for his immediate release.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 contravened the provisions of Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution?

ii) Whether the rights under Article 21 can be interpreted in light of Article 19, and if due process principles form part of the phrase “procedure established by law”?

iii) Whether Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was unconstitutional for denying detainees the right to disclose grounds of detention?

iv) Whether the Act’s procedural framework satisfied the constitutional requirements of Article 22(4)–(7)?