MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The “Doctrine of Procedure Established by Law” is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This doctrine mandates that any deprivation of life or personal liberty must follow a procedure that is duly enacted by the legislature. It emphasizes adherence to the prescribed legal process, ensuring that any action affecting an individual’s fundamental rights is conducted under the authority of law.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

Initially, the Indian Constitution adopted the “procedure established by law” doctrine, differing from the American “due process of law.” The framers chose this to limit judicial overreach and ensure parliamentary supremacy in defining legal procedures. However, over time, judicial interpretations expanded the scope of Article 21 to incorporate elements of fairness and reasonableness, aligning it more closely with the due process concept.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In the United States, the Constitution incorporates the “due process of law” clause, which not only requires legal procedures to be followed but also mandates that these procedures be fair, just, and reasonable. This contrasts with the original Indian doctrine, which focused solely on adherence to enacted law, without assessing its fairness.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

The doctrine comprises several key elements:

• Legislative Enactment: There must be a law enacted by the legislature.
• Procedural Compliance: The procedure prescribed by this law must be strictly followed.
• Legality: The law must be within the legislative competence and must not violate any constitutional provisions.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Article 21 serves as the cornerstone of this doctrine. Additionally, procedural laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) outline the specific procedures to be followed in legal matters, ensuring that any deprivation of life or personal liberty adheres to established legal processes.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
   In this case, A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court held that as long as there was a law prescribing a procedure, any deprivation of life or personal liberty was valid, even if the law was unjust or unreasonable. This case highlighted a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing solely on the existence of a procedure established by law without assessing its fairness.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
   Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing her an opportunity to be heard, citing public interest. She challenged this action, contending it violated her rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, ruling that the procedure established by law must be “right, just, and fair” and not “arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.” This judgment effectively incorporated the principles of natural justice into the procedure established by law, ensuring that laws affecting life and personal liberty must also be reasonable and just.

3. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964):
   Kharak Singh was subjected to police surveillance, including domiciliary visits at night, under the U.P. Police Regulations. He challenged these actions as violations of his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that while the term “life” in Article 21 means more than mere animal existence, the regulations authorizing such surveillance were unconstitutional as they violated the “personal liberty” guaranteed by Article 21. This case emphasized that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair and not arbitrary.

4. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976):
   During the Emergency, several individuals were detained without trial. The detainees challenged their detention, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court controversially held that during the Emergency, the right to seek remedy for enforcement of Article 21 remained suspended. This judgment was widely criticized for its narrow interpretation of Article 21 and was later overruled, reaffirming the importance of judicial oversight in protecting personal liberty.

5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):
   The case involved the involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests during criminal investigations. The Supreme Court held that such involuntary administration violated the “personal liberty” and “right against self-incrimination” under Articles 20(3) and 21. The Court emphasized that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, reinforcing the expanded interpretation of Article 21.

INTERPRETATIONS / EXPLANATIONS

The evolution of Article 21’s interpretation signifies a shift from a literal to a purposive approach, ensuring that laws not only follow due procedure but are also just, fair, and reasonable. This transformation aligns the Indian legal system more closely with the principles of substantive due process, ensuring comprehensive protection of individual rights.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The transformation from “procedure established by law” to incorporating elements of “due process of law” reflects the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding fundamental rights. This shift ensures that the mere existence of a law is insufficient; the law must also be fair, just, and reasonable.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

• Audi Alteram Partem: This principle of natural justice, meaning “hear the other side,” has been integrated into the interpretation of Article 21, ensuring that individuals are given a fair opportunity to be heard before any deprivation of life or personal liberty.
• Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: Meaning “no one should be a judge in their own cause,” this principle ensures impartiality in legal proceedings, reinforcing the fairness aspect of the procedure established by law.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

The initial narrow interpretation of Article 21 was criticized for allowing unjust laws to infringe upon personal liberties. However, the judiciary’s subsequent expansive interpretation has been lauded for strengthening the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring that laws are not only procedurally valid but also substantively fair.