A K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS, 1950
INTRODUCTION
The A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, was the first Supreme Court judgement, as Indian Constitution was also adopted in 1950. This case stands as a crucial landmark judgement in Indian legal history as it concerned with fundamental rights, state power and Preventive Detention. This case is also known as Preventive Detection case. The main focus of this case was centered on various articles –
➢ Article 19: right to move freely throughout the territory of India
➢ Article 21: right to life and personal liberty
➢ Article 22: protection against arrest and detention
This case also explained about the doctrine of natural justice. And also clears that court is not binding to apply due process of law in India, as it is mentioned in American Constitution.
Some more details, about the case-
❖ Case name: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
❖ Court : Supreme Court of India
❖ Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27
❖ Date of judgement: 19th May, 1950
❖ Dissent: S. Fazl Ali
FACT OF THIS CASE
A.K. Gopalan, who was also popular as AKG, was an Indian communist leader. He had been detained several times since 1947. And he again detained in 1950, under Preventive Detection Act,1950, which allows the government to detain any person without any trial, if they seems to be a threat to the national security. And detainee was also has been detained without any explanation.
He filled a petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India, under writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of Preventive Detection Act, 1950 and violation of his fundamental rights under Article 19, 21 and 22.
ISSUED RAISED IN THIS CASE
1. Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 violates Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether procedure established by law should be fair and reasonable.
ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES
PETITIONER
• The very first argument presented in the court by the petitioner was challenging the validity and legality of the Preventive Detection Act, 1950. In which they argued that this is the violation of Article 19, 21 and 22.
• He also argued that after the court set him free, but he was still detained by the state government, which was the violation of Article 19 (1)(d), which states right to move freely in the territory of India. And this is also the violation of right to freedom of speech and expression.
• He also argued about the violation of Article 21, which is right to life and personal liberty and protection against arrest and detention.
• The concept of ‘Due process of law’ in the American Constitution has the same meaning and does not differ interpretation from the expression ‘Procedure established by law’ in the Indian Constitution under Article 21. In which American constitution gives procedural and substantive protection, but Indian Constitution only gives procedural protection and not substantive protection.
DEFENDANT
• They argued that the procedure established by law had been appropriately followed,because according to Entry 9 of List 1 Parliament has authority to make laws related to detention.
• They also argued that Preventive Detection Act 1950 does not violate any law. Because this is the procedure established by law.
• They also says that there is no violation of any fundamental rights mentioned.
JUDGEMENT
In this case court held that:
• Preventive Detention Act, 1950 does not violates any fundamental right under Article 19, 21 and 22.
• It also stated that there is no link between article 19 and 21. Article 19 is not applicable on the detainee.
• Furthermore, it is also cleared by the court that the doctrine of natural justice was also not violated.
• And detention of A.K Gopalan under Preventive Detection Act 1950 was held valid.
And also held that Preventive Detection Act 1950 is constitutional.
• The court gave the narrow interpretation of procedure established by law. And also says that due process of law and procedure established by law are different from each other.
CONCLUSION
The case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) was a historic case in Indian constitutional law it regarding fundamental rights. This case highlighted the interpretation of judiciary on interpretation of preventive detention and the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) in the Constitution of India . The decision of Supreme Court emphasized the need for balance between individual liberty and state security.
JOIN US FOR MORE UPDATES:-
WHATSAPP CHANNEL -
https://chat.whatsapp.com/KFqEQu2XzFa8RvSg42N9rM
TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/learnwithsakshi03
Linkedin account -
Instagram -
https://www.instagram.com/_sakshinchaos_?igsh=MTRobXA5eG9jY3AzMw%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
FOR ANY QUERY, EMAIL US ON - hustlinglearning@gmail.com
Post a Comment