Citation: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
Eligibility: The petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The eligibility of the case was grounded on the infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 19 and 21.
Facts: A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, without being formally charged or tried. He challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Gopalan contended that his detention lacked procedural safeguards, thus contravening the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights.
Issues:
1. Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
2. Whether the term "procedure established by law" under Article 21 is synonymous with the "due process of law."
3. Whether the preventive detention violated Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.
Relevant Articles:
● Article 14: Right to Equality
● Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
● Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
● Article 22: Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention
Judgment: The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act except for Section 14. The key points of the judgment included:
● Procedure Established by Law: The Court interpreted "procedure established by law" in Article 21 as not requiring adherence to the principles of "natural justice" or "due process." Instead, it meant following the procedures laid down by the law passed by the legislature.
● Separation of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that the rights under Articles 19 and 21 are distinct and independent. Article 19 is not applicable to preventive detention under Article 21.
● Article 22: The Court emphasized that Article 22 provided specific safeguards in cases of preventive detention, which were not violated in this case.
Conclusion: The Preventive Detention Act was held constitutional, and Gopalan’s detention was upheld. This judgment established a restrictive interpretation of Article 21 and set a precedent for the separation of fundamental rights until it was revisited in later cases.
-SAKSHI
I Year
DNLU, Jabalpur
Comments