CASE COMMENT:
A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of ... on 19 May, 1950
Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88
Author:
H J Kania
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)
PETITIONER:
............................................................................................................A.K.
GOPALAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
........................................ THE STATE OF MADRAS.UNION OF INDIA:
INTERVENER.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:19/05/1950
BENCH:
KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
CITATION:
AIR 1950 SC 27
1950 SCR 88
(1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
Introduction:
It is one of the most common and known cases. This is
the first case held by the apex court in which various articles of the
Constitution of India contained in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights and were
discussed. The main articles like 19, 21 & 22 were dealt with in this case.
Nearly after 30 years of this case, the Apex Court did away with the
restrictive view of the rights embrace therein, by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India. Nevertheless, for the jurisprudence of Fundamental rights in India, it
still makes an important part of the evolution. The most conspicuous feature of
this case is its dissenting verdict given by Justice Fazl Ali, one of the two
dissenting judges in a six judges bench. The dissenting judgment given by him
back in 1950, went on to become an example of personal liberty and liberalized
viewpoint for the fundamental rights.
Provision of law involved:
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, was a
landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that
Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to apply a due
process of law standard. In doing so, the Court upheld the validity of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which
provided that the grounds of detention communicated to the detainee or any
representation made by him against these grounds cannot be disclosed in a court
of law.
Issues:
Whether the detention Act of Madras State contravene
the provisions of Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether the State’s detention Act, 1950 provisions in
accordance with Article 22 of the Indian Constitution?
REASONING/ARGUMENTS
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, it
was held by the majority judges that punitive and preventive detention were outside
the ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and hence the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 had not violated it. It was also contended by the court
that the said article which provides protection to citizens who are free,
therefore not the citizen whose freedom is restrained by law, and the question
of enforcing Article 19(1) does not arise.
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 has followed the
valid procedure as in the form enacted by the state’s law and therefore the
Apex court came upon the argument that it does not infringe upon the rights
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Various provisions of the Preventive Detention Act,
1950 are covered under Article 22 and those which are not, are added through
the aspects of Article 21. The Apex court held that Section 3 of the Act was
justified and as it was valid to provide such discretionary powers to the
executive, in addition with the majority court also agreed upon the validity of
Section 7 and 11 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as under Article 2(7)(b)
the parliament has not mandatory power to set a minimum detention period and
under Article 22(5) and 22(6) the right of representation which off to be heard
verbally are not necessary. Section 14 of the saidAct was also declared ultra
vires because it contended the court’s right to determine the validity of
detention.
Facts of the case:
In this particular case the petition was made by Mr.
A. K. Gopalan under Article 32(1) of the Constitution of India, In pursuance of
an order made under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, a writ of Habeus Corpus
was filed against his detention. Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader, and
since December 1947 he had been under detention, as imprisonment under ordinary
criminal laws he was convicted & sentenced. However, these convictions were
overruled by the court. A.k. Gopalan when detained, on 1st March
1950, was served upon an order by the State Government of Madras, made under
section 3 (1) of the particular Act, which confers upon the State or Central
Government. After then he challenged in court the legitimacy of the order under
the Act on the ground that the Act violates humans fundamental rights as the
provisions given under Articles 13, 19 & 21, and the provisions of this Act
4 of 1950 of Madras State are not in conformity with Article 22 of Indian
Constitution. Mr. Gopalan also contended that the order issued was malafide.
Contentions:
Argument given by Petitioner:
M.K. Nambiar appeared petitioner’s counsel. The
petitioner’s counsel primarily argued the legality and validity of the
provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which they believed violated
the Fundamental Rights of Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22. They thought that it was
because:
1.
Article19(1) (d) of the Indian Constitution, 1950, states
that the citizens have the freedom to move freely within the territory of India
was abridged by the detention order given by the State Government of Madras.
Thus, the Detention order was in contravention of his rights as his freedom of
movement was restrained.
2.
The provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950
infringed on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and the challenged statute
failed to meet the test outlined in Article 19(2) i.e. the State can put
reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech and expression on the ground
of State’s security, public order, friendly relations with foreign States,
integrity and sovereignty in India. Thus, the petitioner’s freedom of speech
and expression was revoked.
His right to liberty under Article 21
was being violated by his detention (Right to life and personal liberty).
3.
They contended that Articles 19 (1) and 21 should be read
together because Article 19 (1) deals with the substantive rights of the
citizen and Article 21 deals with theprocedural aspects of personal liberty,
and that deprivation of life and personal liberty of a person other than the
procedure established by law is prohibited.
4.
The detention order was also arbitrary, which violated
Article 22 of the constitution’s right against arrest and detention.
5.
Section 14 of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 violated his fundamental right under Article 13
of the Constitution which states, the law inconsistent with the interrogation
of fundamental rights is void, so this Act should be declared void.
Argument given by Respondent:
Advocate K. Rajah Aiyar (Advocate-General of Madras),
and M.C. Setalvad (Attorney-General of India) representing the State of Madras
and the Union of India respectively.
1.
The respondent contended that Sections 19 and 21 should not
be read together, but rather separately. The article mentioned in 19 (1) (a) to
(g) should be considered separately from the perspective of another citizen who
has a similar right.
2.
According to Article 22 of the constitution, detention is not
arbitrary.
3.
The legal procedure has been followed as per the law and the
Constitution of India.
JUDGEMENT FOR A. K. GOPALAN V. STATE
OF MADRAS
It was held by the Supreme Court of India, that any of
the sections of the Preventive detention Act, IV of 1950 has infringed the
provisions of Part III of the constitution barring Section 14 of the Act,
restricting the declaration of the grounds of detention. Section 14 of the
Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950 was declared Ultra Vires, nonetheless the
declaration by the court did not affect the validity of the act as a whole.
Dissent
The important dissent was given by Fazl Ali as he
said, the court when analyzing fundamental rights violations needs to
coordinately interpret the various Articles under Part III of the Constitution
of India and not merely as silos. Further, Section12 and 14 of the Act while
contravening Article 22 of the Indian Constitution were also contended to
violating freedom and personal liberty of the individual. Moreover, Justice
Mahajan differed in his conclusion and holding Section 12 to be ultra-vires
while agreeing to the majority judges’ interpretation.
AFTERLIFE: A. K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF
MADRAS
The Fundamental rights through the reasoning of
procedural by the due process are now read separately, as interpreted in the
A.K. Gopalan’s case, which was denounced and the understands the substantive
due process which was brought in for the upcoming cases. In the case of Maneka
Gandhi v Union of India, the Apex court held that the procedure for Article 21
has to be just, fair and reasonable and also should be in accordance with the
principles of equality and freedom under Article 13 and 19 of the Indian Constitution,
thus the provisions of fundamental rights were established to be read together.
Conclusion
This is a landmark Judgement contended by the bench of
6 Judges where the majority opinion in the case was that article 21 which
covering procedure established by law would simply mean the law established by
the state. The meaning of Law in itself is intended upon, and it is contended
that it would provide a too wide understanding of reading it within rules of
natural justice as the connotations of natural justice leaving them formerly
undefined. This verdict progresses from the idea of law and natural morals
which are uncleared. Professor Hart, who said that there is a link between law
and morals but there is no interdependence. The court in the said case
exaggerated this reasoning through the interpretation that there is a specific
standard set for law which is the formulation through legislation and
legitimizes it.
Furthermore, it is well quoted by the court that law
was meant to be understood as “jus” that is, a law in the abstract sense of
principles of natural justice and not as “rex” that is, enacted law. The true
form of legitimacy for any law is the recognition of the principles of natural
justice.
0 Comments