Kavya Shukla
A K Gopalan versus State of Madras
It took 28 years nearly three decades for the Supreme Court of India to change from A K Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi. The supreme court gave its decision on A. K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras [1]in the year 1950 and the judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2] was given in the year 1978. Fundamental rights that are mentioned in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, have a very significant role in our Indian judiciary, all laws that are made after the commencement of the constitution should be in accordance with fundamental rights and should never violate them. If any of the laws do not comply with the higher laws that are fundamental rights then those laws whether made prior to the commencement of the constitution or made after will be automatically declared void in accordance with Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.
In A K Gopalan the issue that arose was regarding the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and whether the act is in accordance with Article 21 and also Article 19 of the Indian Constitution or not. Mr. A K Gopalan said that the word that should be used in Article 21 should be ‘due’. In answer to this the supreme court said that the word ‘due’ is not used in Article 21 but instead of that the word ‘procedure established by law’ is used so the court said that they will follow the procedure that is established by law only. The chief justice who was at that time Harilal Kania said in A K Gopalan that ‘the Constitution gave the legislature the final word to determine the law.’[3] It was said by judges that Articles 19 and 21 were mutually exclusive and were not complementary to each other because Article 21 talked about the right to life but Article 19 did not talk about it instead it talked about other rights. Also, the court said that a law cannot be declared unconstitutional merely on the grounds that it lacked the basic principles or natural justice or it was not following the due procedure of law. As majorly every judgment has a dissenting opinion over here too Justice Fazl Ali had a different opinion. He said that ‘Article 19, 20, 21 and 22 to some extent overlapped each other.’[4] He said that if the judiciary will not give importance to reasonableness, then there can be situations of dictatorship, principles of natural justice will not be followed, and so on. This was a very futuristic approach which was very much ahead of time. But the court did not give importance to what Justice Fazl said at that time.
West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar
In the year 1952, the Constitutional bench of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar[5] said that the Constitution must be elastic to constitutional amendments with changing times, as time changes so should the Constitution. In Anwar Ali, the bench was trying to interpret fundamental rights in a different manner but still, the doctrine that was passed in A K Gopalan was not overruled in Anwar Ali. The majority judgment of A K Gopalan was not overruled until the Supreme court bench consisting of 11 judges in 1970 came into effect.
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India
Also, in the Bennett Coleman case, the court took Article 19 into consideration. It said that even if Article 19(2) was not directly related to freedom of speech but still its reasonableness will become assessable to Article 19(2).[6] This argument of the supreme court completely struck down the court’s decision in A K Gopalan, that Article 19 can only be applied when something falls under the ambit of the article and if it is not falling under it then Article 19 will not come into force. But in the Bennett Coleman case, the supreme court took into its ambit Article 19(2) also even though it is not directly related to it.
RC Cooper versus Union of India
In 1970 the case of R C Cooper versus Union of India[7] came into the limelight. In this case, for the very first time, the Supreme Court of India said that Article 31(2) has to be read with Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court was in a different line with A K Gopalan. In A K Gopalan the supreme court said that Articles 19 and 21 cannot go together but over here in R C Cooper the supreme court came up with different and futuristic thinking. The ‘object test’ that was given in A K Gopalan was replaced by the ‘effects test’ in R C Cooper.[8] Therefore, the judges said that we have to protect the fundamental rights from any kind of infringement from the state or center, fundamental rights are above all.
Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and Others
Now came one of the most landmark judgments of the Indian judicial system ‘Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and Others.’ The issues that were dealt with by the supreme court were that right to go abroad was a component of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that is the right to life and personal liberty. Maneka Gandhi was denied this right without even hearing her and also, she was not told the reason why was the right denied to her. Also, under Section 10(3)(c) of the passport act, 1967 the passport authorities were given the power to impound the passport of anybody for the following four reasons:
- at any time for the interest of the general public,
- or doing this is important for the Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation
- or it is important for the security of India
- or that is important for mA King any foreign relations with other countries.
For the very first time, the judgment given by the Supreme Court of India in A K Gopalan was overruled in Maneka Gandhi.
The supreme court first said that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act was not in violation of Article 14 but the point of impounding anyone’s passport at any given time without even giving the reason was in violation of principles of natural justice. Chief justice M. Hameedullah Beg relied upon the doctrine that was given in IC Golaknath versus the State of Punjab[9], that the fundamental rights are the natural rights embodied in the Indian Constitution itself and are above all.[10] Also, Chief Justice Beg said that fundamental rights are not different or separate. All fundamental rights mentioned under Part 3 of the Indian Constitution are a part of the same integrated scheme, their water can mix to constitute the grand flow of unimpeded and impartial justice.[11] Justice P N Bhagwati in the judgment said that the courts should try to expand the scope of fundamental rights instead of attenuating their meaning, scope, and expansion during the judicial process. Courts should always remember that fundamental rights are higher law and they should never try to infringe them. Not only this, Justice P N Bhagwati gives reference to the human body, that like the human body cannot work without its parts likewise Constitution can also not work without its parts all articles, but schedules also have to go hand in hand for the smooth working of the Constitution.
After this, the supreme court came to a point that Articles 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive but instead they support each other, strengthen each other and go hand in hand with each other. The Supreme court widened the meaning of personal liberty. Furthermore, the words “due process of law” were replaced with the words “procedure established by law”. Thus, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution now reads:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[12]
Post Maneka Gandhi Scenario
Article 21 has been continuously emerging since the judgment in Maneka Gandhi has been given. Justice Iyer in Maneka Gandhi said that ‘Article 21 is the procedural Magna Carta of life and liberty.’[13] Since, Maneka Gandhi came into force a lot many times the theme of Articles 14, 19, and 21 not being mutually exclusive but instead strengthening and sustaining each other have been used by the supreme court.[14] Maneka Gandhi brought up a very important point for people who live in a civic society. A civilized society has people who treat each other equally and value each and everyone’s life and personal liberty. No one should ever be deprived of their personal liberty and life. Not only Maneka Gandhi has widened the scope of personal liberty and life, but it has also tried to make things even better. It has tried to humanize administration relating to criminal justice.[15] Maneka Gandhi gave a very wide and expansive meaning to the terms of life and personal liberty. It proved that all laws should be just, fair and reasonable and should follow some basic principles of natural justice or equality.
Conclusion
At the last, I want to conclude that the supreme court gave a very righteous judgment to Maneka Gandhi. The court was of the opinion that the procedure that should be prescribed by law for depriving anybody’s personal liberty and life should be just fair and reasonable and should not be arbitrary or fanciful or unreasonable. It should be backed by logical reason and should not deprive anyone’s right to life and dignity. The Supreme court took a very different and futuristic approach. If this approach would not have been taken by the Supreme court at that time it would have been very difficult for the citizens of India.
[1] A. K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
[2] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
[3] Ganguly, A. K. (2016). Landmark judgments that changed India. Rupa.
[4] Ganguly, A. K. (2016). Landmark judgments that changed India. Rupa.
[5] West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
[6] Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
[7] RC Cooper versus Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248
[8] Ganguly, A. K. (2016). Landmark judgments that changed India. Rupa.
[9] IC Golaknath versus the State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643
[10] Ganguly, A. K. (2016). Landmark judgments that changed India. Rupa.
[11] Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and Others, AIR 1978 SC 597
[12] Chandrachud, A. (2016, May 12). A tale of two judgments. The Hindu. Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-tale-of-two-judgments/article8586369.ece
[13] Quraishi SM. India: Indian Constitutional. Law Ed. By M.P. Jain. N.M. Tripathi, Bombay. 1970 xxxiii 816p. Rs 40. India Quarterly. 1971;27(4):394-394. doi:10.1177/097492847102700449
[14] T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 361
[15] Supra note 15.
The author is a student of Jindal Global Law School currently interning with Desi Kaanoon.