Due Process of Law means a legal principle that ensures laws are created fairly and not arbitrary. Due Process of Law is a doctrine that not only determines whether a law exists that would deprive a person of their life and liberty but also assures that the law is formed in a fair and just manner. The due process of law provides the Supreme Court broad authority to defend the rights of its citizens.This article explains the Due Process of Law which is important for UPSC Indian Polity Preparation.

Due Process of Law - Explanation

• Due process requires the court to examine not just the procedural legitimacy of legislation, but also whether it is just, fair, and reasonable.
• The doctrine presents an actual and true image, any unfair methods employed while adopting laws are deemed invalid.
• The court would also consider the legislative wisdom of passing particular legislation in this situation.
• Any law that the Supreme Court of India finds to be unfair shall be ruled null and invalid. Individual rights are treated more fairly under Due Process of Law.
• The Supreme Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional and invalid for violating basic rights on both substantive and procedural grounds.
• A person's legal rights must be respected by the state at all times, and any laws that states pass must be in accordance with the laws of the nation. This is known as due process.
• Example: Person in possession and enjoyment of Property can not be dispossessed by State Authority except by Due Process of Law.
• The phrase “due process of law” is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Indian Constitution.
• It has a wider scope as it not only checks if the procedure is according to law but also if the law is just and fair.
• Individuals are protected by due process of law not only against arbitrary executive actions but also from arbitrary legislative actions.
• Any legislation's essential fairness, justice, and liberty are likewise assessed by the judiciary.
• The concept of “due process of law” is borrowed from the US Constitution.

Due Process of Law in India - Background

Due process of Law in India has advanced significantly in two key ways

• First, the interplay of Articles 14, 19, and 21 requires that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 to be just, fair, and reasonable;
• Second, the relationships between Articles 20, 21, and 22 as a corollary of advancement under Article 21 has greatly accelerated this idea.
• Dr. Ambedkar borrowed this idea from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the American Constitution.
• One of the most important decisions the Constituent Assembly had to make was whether to adhere to "due process of law" or the "procedure provided by law".
• B. N. Rau supported Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter's viewpoint that the application of "due process of law" would result in more cases being pending.

Due Process of Law in India - Constitutional provisions

• The word "due process of law" is not included in any of the articles of the Indian Constitution.
• Therefore it is free from the golden triangle created by Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• According to court interpretations, Article 21's reference to "procedure established by law" has been understood as "due process of law."
• The Drafting Committee's goal in adding the words "process established by law" in Article 21 was to avert social revolt and uncertainty by giving the court priority.
• In India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which featured the concept of non-arbitrariness, served as the basis for "due process of law."
• The court concluded that no law enacted to deprive someone their life and personal freedom in conformity with Article 21 should be arbitrary, unjust, or irrational.
• The fact that Article 21 is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system causes it to absorb radiation from related articles like Articles 20, 22, 14, and 19 in order to serve the needs of justice, despite the fact that Article 21 does not specifically establish any quality or rule for the procedure.

What Do India’s Courts Follow?

• The Supreme Court of India follows a mix of both procedures established by law and the due process of law.
• It sometimes follows the basic procedure defined by law, while other times it puts law to the test in accordance with the law's due process requirements.
• In the ADM Jabalpur v. ShivKant Shukla case (Habeas Corpus case), 1976 the honourable Supreme Court followed the process of procedure established bylaw.
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 the Supreme Court gave its judgement based on the due process of law.
• The court ruled that the behaviour in question was illegal. It highlighted that the reasoning behind a legislation is more essential than the process.
• Concerning Article 21, the court found that, while the language employed in Article 21 is procedure defined by law rather than due process of law,

Due Process of Law - Important Judgements

A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras (1950)

• The SC determined in this ruling that the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 is constitutional and emphasised on the contrast between the Doctrine of Due Process and the Procedure established by law.
• The Supreme Court ruled that "procedure established by law" in this case should be taken literally.
• In relation to Article 21, the Court ruled that it is clear from the Constitution's Drafting Committee that the Constituent Assembly initially used the phrase "due process of law" before switching to the wording "procedure established by law."
• The phrase "process established by law" must mean a procedure set down in the laws of the State.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

• The Court in this decision emphasised that the word "due process of law" poses some interpretation challenges and is vague.
• It also underlined once more that the phrase was purposely omitted from the language of Article 21 by the Constitution's drafters.
• In a rare instance, "due process" of law and the legal notion of "procedure established by law" are fairly similar.

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India (2020)

• A significant decision about the definition of what is "political" was decided by the Supreme Court.
• The Indian Social Action Forum filed a petition against the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules of 2011 and some provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010. (INSAF).
• The Supreme Court determined that a legislation should be construed in a way that best supports the objectives and preferences of the legislative body if it may be read in a number of different ways.
• The principle of due process is not being applied in this case.
• However, in cases when the law forbids such interpretation, those implementing it are submerged in an unending sea of uncertainty, and the law purports to remove protected freedom.

Conclusion

According to the due process of law doctrine, the state cannot take any actions that would violate a person's right to safety, liberty, or life. Simply expressed, "due process of law" means that the courts uphold the rule of law while simultaneously examining the fairness and arbitrariness of the legislation. Although it is not explicitly stated in the constitution, the Supreme Court has expanded its authority to apply due process of law in order to provide for the needs of the populace. Instead, the judiciary has the authority to decide whether a method is rational, just, and fair. However, as was already said, this idea is outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

FAQs

Q1: What is meant by 'Due Process of Law'?

Q2: What is the difference between 'Procedure Established by Law' and 'Due Process of Law'?

Q3: Which article of the Indian Constitution relates to Due Process of Law?

Q4: How did the Maneka Gandhi case impact the interpretation of Article 21?

Q5: What role does judicial review play in Due Process of Law?

MCQs

1. Which case marked the shift from 'Procedure Established by Law' to 'Due Process of Law' in India?

a) A.K. Gopalan Case

b) Kesavananda Bharati Case

c) Maneka Gandhi Case

d) Golaknath Case

2. What does 'Due Process of Law' ensure?

a) Only procedural adherence

b) Only legal conformity

c) Both legality and fairness of laws

d) Only legislative sovereignty

3. Which article of the Indian Constitution was reinterpreted to include 'Due Process of Law'?

a) Article 14

b) Article 19

c) Article 21

d) Article 32

4. Which doctrine allows courts to declare laws void if they are arbitrary or unjust?

a) Doctrine of Severability

b) Doctrine of Due Process

c) Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

d) Doctrine of Stare Decisis

5. What role does judicial review play concerning 'Due Process of Law'?

a) It approves all laws enacted by Parliament

b) It ensures laws are applied uniformly

c) It checks whether laws violate fundamental rights

d) It limits the powers of the judiciary

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Explain the significance of the Maneka Gandhi case in shaping the concept of 'Due Process of Law' in India.

Answer: The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) case was a landmark judgment that expanded the interpretation of Article 21. Initially, Article 21 followed the principle of 'Procedure Established by Law,' which emphasized strict adherence to legal procedures. However, the Supreme Court, in the Maneka Gandhi case, introduced the concept of 'Due Process of Law,' ensuring that laws affecting personal liberty must be not only legally valid but also fair, just, and reasonable. This decision marked a shift towards a more substantive interpretation of rights and significantly enhanced judicial activism. It ensured that even laws enacted through proper procedures could be struck down if they were arbitrary or unjust, thereby strengthening the protection of individual liberties in India.

Q2: Compare and contrast 'Procedure Established by Law' and 'Due Process of Law' with examples from the Indian legal system.

Answer: 'Procedure Established by Law' focuses strictly on adherence to the legal process, as seen in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950), where the Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention law despite its harshness. However, 'Due Process of Law,' introduced in the Maneka Gandhi case, goes beyond procedure to assess the fairness and reasonableness of laws. It ensures that no law, even if procedurally correct, can infringe upon individual rights unjustly. For instance, under the doctrine of due process, the judiciary can strike down arbitrary laws, enhancing judicial oversight over both the executive and legislature. This comparison illustrates how due process ensures a balance between individual liberties and state authority.

Q3: Discuss the role of judicial review in upholding the principles of 'Due Process of Law' in India.

Answer: Judicial review plays a crucial role in upholding 'Due Process of Law' by ensuring that the laws passed by the legislature are in conformity with constitutional principles. Through judicial review, courts have the authority to invalidate laws that are arbitrary, unjust, or infringe upon fundamental rights. For example, in the Maneka Gandhi case, the Supreme Court emphasized that laws restricting personal liberty must be reasonable and not arbitrary, thereby reinforcing the principle of due process. Judicial review acts as a check on legislative and executive power, ensuring that individual rights are not violated under the pretext of legal procedures. This mechanism strengthens the rule of law and ensures that state actions remain accountable.

Previous Year Questions on  Due Process of Law

1. UPSC CSE Prelims 2019

Question: Which case in India established the concept of 'Due Process of Law'?

a) A.K. Gopalan Case

b) Maneka Gandhi Case

c) Golaknath Case

d) Kesavananda Bharati Case

Answer: b) Maneka Gandhi Case

Explanation: In the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, establishing that laws affecting life and liberty must be fair and just, thereby introducing the concept of 'Due Process of Law.'

2. UPSC CSE Mains 2017

Question: Analyze the evolution of the concept of 'Due Process of Law' in the Indian context. (200 words)

Answer: The evolution of the concept of 'Due Process of Law' in India reflects the judiciary's growing emphasis on fairness and reasonableness. Initially, in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court adhered to the principle of 'Procedure Established by Law,' focusing on the legality of the process. However, this approach limited judicial intervention in cases of unjust laws.
A significant shift occurred in the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) case, where the court ruled that laws affecting personal liberty must be both legally valid and just. This judgment introduced the principle of 'Due Process of Law,' allowing courts to examine not only the procedure but also the fairness and reasonableness of laws. The concept has empowered the judiciary to strike down arbitrary and unjust laws, enhancing judicial review and protecting individual liberties. This evolution underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining a balance between state authority and personal freedom.

*email: contactus@prepp.in