Author – Deva Dharshini K, 4th year B.A., LL.B, Chennai Dr Ambedkar Govt law college Pudupakkam.
INTRODUCTION:
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras is one of the most well-known cases. This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered a case in which several provisions of the Indian Constitution, found inside the Chapter on Fundamental Rights, have been scrutinised[1]. The critical articles 19, 21, and 22 have been considered in this context. Over 30 years later, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reversed the restrictive understanding of the rights embraced therein. Nonetheless, it continues to be an important component of the formation of Indian fundamental rights jurisprudence.[2]
The most notable aspect of this case is Justice Fazl Ali’s dissenting verdict, which was probably one of two dissenting justices on a six-judge panel. His dissenting opinion, published in 1950, has become a model of personal autonomy and a more liberal approach to fundamental rights.[3] The case of AK Gopalan v State of Madras permitted the Indian judiciary to provide a broad interpretation of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution. Following this ruling, Indian courts began to consider citizens’ and non-citizens’ Fundamental Rights in a larger and more comprehensive perspective, rather than interpreting the Fundamental Rights in such a way that they encompassed all human rights.[4]
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
In Madras, AK Gopalan, a Communist leader, was arrested and imprisoned under the Preventive Detention Law in 1950. To protest his incarceration, he filed a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. He contended that Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act contradict Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and that the Act thus violates the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner also cited the part of the Indian Constitution titled “process described by statute.” In this case, Mr. A. K. Gopalan filed the petition under Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution.
In response to an order issued under the Preventive Incarceration Act of 1950, a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in protest to his detention. Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader imprisoned since December 1947 after being tried and sentenced under conventional criminal laws.[5] However, the court overturned those convictions. On March 1, 1950, A.k. Gopalan was arrested and served with an order from the Madras State Government, which was issued under section 3 (1) of the Act, which gives the State or Central Government powers. Following that, he challenged the Act’s legality in court, claiming that it violates people’s fundamental rights because the provisions of Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the provisions of Madras State Act 4 of 1950, are in conflict with Article 22 of the Indian Constitution. Mr. Gopalan also alleged that the sequence became incorrect.[6]
ISSUES RAISED:
- Is the Madras State Detention Act in breach of Indian Constitutional Articles 19 and 21?
- Is Article 22 of the Indian Constitution in conflict with the State’s Detention Act of 1950?
In rejecting the petitioner’s complaints, the Supreme Court of India stated that Article 22 of the Indian Constitution is a self-contained Code and that he was detained in accordance with legal procedures. The court also determined that the state is not in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution if it takes away a person’s liberty in accordance with the legal procedure, i.e., if the detention was done legally[7].
In this decision, the Supreme Court employed a severe reading of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Based on the concept of severability, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 14 is unconstitutional and violates basic rights. The court upheld the legal procedure principle, ruling that the due process provision and international human rights charters apply in Indian courts. The court also declared sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the constitution to be intra-vires and so legal. Finally, the Court ruled that the detention was legal and dismissed the petition.[8]
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, the majority judges held that punitive and preventive detention fell outside the scope of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, and thus the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 did not violate it. The court further held that the aforementioned article protects free citizens rather than citizens whose freedom is limited by law, and hence the issue of applying Article 19(1) does not arise. The Apex Court concluded that the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution since it followed the necessary procedure as authorised by state legislation.[9]
JUDGEMENT
Many parts of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 are covered by Article 22, while those that aren’t are covered by Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Act was reasonable and that giving the executive such discretionary authority was legal. The majority court also agreed on the legality of Sections 7 and 11 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, because the parliament does not have the mandatory power to set a minimum detention period under Article 2(7)(b), and the right to be heard verbally is not required under Articles 22(5) and 22(6). Section 14 of the same Act was also declared unconstitutional because it questioned the court’s authority to judge whether detention was legal or not. [10]
With the exception of section 14 of the Act, which limits the declaration of detention grounds, the Supreme Court of India decided that no section of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950, violated the criteria of Part III of the constitution. The court ruled that Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Legislation, IV of 1950, was unconstitutional, although this did not affect the act’s overall validity.
CONCLUSION
This is a landmark decision by a six-judge panel, with the majority ruling that article 21, which covers procedure defined by law, simply refers to state law[11]. Furthermore, the court states that the law was meant to be construed as “jus,” or law in the abstract sense of natural justice principles, rather than “rex,” or enacted legislation. Acceptance of natural justice principles is the true form of legal legitimacy.
[1] A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India, Indian Kannon, (May. 8, 2022, 11.40am) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
[2] Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India, Indian Kannon, (May. 11, 2022, 1.20pm), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/
[3] Three great dissents’ find place in Supreme Court’s privacy verdict, Hindustan Times, (May. 9, 2022, 3.55pm), https://www-hindustantimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.hindustantimes.com
[4] A.K. Gopalan V. State Of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88), Lawsisto, (May. 12, 2022, 1.45pm) https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/ODY3MQ==/AK-Gopalan-v-State-of-Madras-1950-AIR-27-1950-SCR-88
[5] Ibid
[6] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (Interpretation of key Fundamental Rights including Article 19 & 21), Law Circa, (May. 8, 2022, 7.40pm) https://lawcirca-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/lawcirca.com
[7] Shah Ishfaq, Preventive Detention, (May. 10, 2022, 9.45pm), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-751-preventive-detention.html
[8] Supra Note 4
[9] A K Gopalan Vs State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) – Case Analysis, Law Corner, (May. 10, 2022, 9.45pm), https://lawcorner.in/a-k-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-air-1950-sc-27/,
[10] Supra Note 7
[11] Supra Note 1