Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that no individual can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except through lawful procedures. This article is pivotal in our Constitution, safeguarding fundamental rights for all citizens, including equality before the law, freedom of speech, and religious and cultural freedoms.
• The concept of "Procedure Established by Law" in Article 21 signifies that a law is only valid if it has been enacted correctly by the legislature or the relevant body, adhering to the appropriate procedures.
• On the other hand, the "Due Process of Law" doctrine not only examines the existence of a law affecting an individual's life and liberty but also ensures the fairness and justice of such a law.
• There are distinctions between the procedures established by law and due process of law. While the former focuses on the correctness of the law's enactment process, the latter delves into the fairness and non-arbitrariness of the law.
• Unlike procedures established by law, due process of law grants the Supreme Court broader authority to protect citizens' rights, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of laws concerning substantive and procedural aspects.

Legal Doctrines

Case 1: Procedure Established by Law

• Procedure established by law signifies that a law is considered valid if it has been properly enacted by the legislature or the relevant body.
• Following this doctrine implies that an individual can be deprived of their life or personal liberty based on the procedures outlined in the law.
• Even if a law contradicts principles of justice and equity, it is deemed valid if it has been duly enacted.
• Strict adherence to this doctrine may pose risks of injustice and compromise to individuals' rights, prompting the Supreme Court to emphasize the importance of due process of law.

Case 2: Due Process of Law

• The doctrine of due process of law not only examines the existence of a law allowing deprivation of life and personal liberty but also evaluates the fairness, justice, and non-arbitrariness of the law.
• If the Supreme Court determines a law to be unfair, it has the authority to declare it null and void.
• Under due process, the state must uphold all legal rights owed to an individual, ensuring that enacted laws align with principles such as fairness and fundamental rights.
• This doctrine grants the judiciary the power to assess the fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty embedded in legislation.

Case laws

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978)

• The Supreme Court of India redefined the interpretation of Article 21, emphasizing that the phrase "procedure established by law" should align with the concept of "due process" as seen in the American Constitution.
• Previously, the Court's stance, as seen in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras, was more aligned with a literal interpretation, requiring only legislation by Parliament to deprive an individual of life or personal liberty.
• However, the Maneka Gandhi case introduced the idea that any procedure leading to the deprivation of life or personal liberty must be fair, just, and in accordance with principles of justice and collective conscience.
• Following this landmark judgment, the distinction between "procedure established by law" and "due process" in India practically disappeared, leading to a series of judgments building upon this pivotal decision.

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v State of Maharashtra

• In this case, the Bombay High Court assessed the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, specifically focusing on Section 5-D, which criminalized the possession of cow, bull, or bullock meat slaughtered outside Maharashtra.
• The court ruled that Section 5-D violated the right to privacy under Article 21, equating the right to privacy with the right to choose one's food preferences.
• Additionally, the court struck down Section 9-B of the Beef Act, which shifted the burden of proof onto the accused in certain cases, emphasizing that such a provision contradicted established procedural rules of evidence in criminal trials.

Rajbala v Haryana

• In the case of Rajbala v. Haryana, the Supreme Court of India rejected the concept of substantive due process, particularly in the context of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015.
• The Act outlined specific disqualifications for individuals seeking to contest elections in Haryana's panchayats, which were challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The court emphasized that while statutes cannot be invalidated solely for being arbitrary, they do not engage in assessing the wisdom of legislative choices unless a specific constitutional violation is evident.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka

• In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the court declared certain tests like narco-analysis, lie-detector, polygraph, and brain-mapping as unconstitutional without the subject's voluntary consent, linking this decision to the right against self-incrimination and the concept of due process of law.
• The judgment underscored that "substantive due process" is inherent in the notion of "personal liberty" safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution, setting the benchmark for evaluating governmental actions that impinge upon personal liberty.