Gopalan To Maneka

A K Gopalan v State of Madras was a significant decision because it represented the first case where the court meaningfully examined and interpreted key fundamental rights enlisted in the constitution including article 19 and 21. A writ of habeas corpus was filed. The contention was whether under this writ and the provisions of THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1950, there was a violation of his fundamental rights which were article 13, 19, 21 and 22. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the right to movement was a fundamental right under article 19 and hence the defence counsel must prove that the law of preventive detention was a reasonable restriction as per the five clauses of article 19(2). Judge restricted the scope of fundamental rights and by reading them in isolation of article 21 and 22 which provided guidelines for preventive detention. Foreign precedent like cases of UK and US were used in limiting the scope of article 21. Justice Kania said that the term due process prevented the courts from engaging in substantive due process analysis in determining the reasonableness of the level of process provided by the legislature. So in CONCLUSION Gopalan case held two major points: 

19, 21 and 22 are mutually exclusive. Art 19 was to not apply to a law affecting personal liberty to which art 21 applies. In the above case, the restrictions under article 19 applied only on free people. Unless the state arrested a person for making a speech, holding an assembly, forming an association or for entering a territory, the arrest had to be EXAMINED under article 21.



A “LAW” affecting life and liberty could not be declared unconstitutional merely because it lacked natural justice or due procedure. Hence article 21 provided no immunity against competent legislative action.

The principle laid down in the Maneka Gandhi is nothing but, the introduction of procedural due process of American Constitution in to Article 21 by articulating that “procedure established by law” must be fair, just and reasonable. Finally, the Supreme Court asserted its authority and proved that it is the true guardian of fundamental rights of people of India. The Supreme Court even went beyond the principles of interpretation of statutes that the courts have to interpret the statute in accordance with intention of legislature. In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court read just, fair, and reasonable words in Article 21 which were deliberately avoided by the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. The defect which had existed in Article 21 because of misconception of the makers of the Constitution in respect of due process has been removed and corrected by the judiciary in the process of interpretation. The Supreme

Court’s decision is courageous, dynamic, innovative and adventurous which laid the foundation for the judicial creativity in the Indian legal system. http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/C64E2EB3-321D-470D-A4C80EE5E55BA21A.pdf