Kartikey Gaur
Chief Creative Officer, Legal WIND
Date of Judgment: 19 May 1950
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (CJ)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citations: [AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383]
INTRODUCTION
AK Gopalan v State of Madras[1] has been noted as one of the significant judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of India. It is recalled as the first case in which the Indian judiciary delivered a judgment to interpret the fundamental rights of the Constitution under Article 19 and 21. After this judgment, the courts in India proceeded towards the fundamental rights of citizens and non-citizens comprehensively, and not to create fundamental rights in a way that restricts the human rights under fundamental rights such as the Right to Privacy, Right to Health, Right to Fight Death, etc.
CASE HISTORY
The petitioner AK Gopalan, a Communist leader, was arrested under the Preventive Detention Act 1950 in Madras Jail. The petitioner challenged the application of the Act on the grounds that it violated the freedom of movement under Article 19 (1) (d)[2] and personal liberty under Article 21 by writ petition of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution.
In the petition, he gave various dates showing how he has been detained since December 1947. He was sentenced to imprisonment under ordinary criminal law, but the sentences were set aside. While he was under detention by one order of the Government of Madras, he was served with an order made under Section 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
ISSUE
Whether Preventive Detention Act 1950 violates fundamental rights as per Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution?
CONTENTION
●A. K. Gopalan argued that the state's actions violated Article 13, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India.
●Also, it was argued that Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act was not in consonants with Article 21 Indian Constitution.
● Also, the same order was said to be delivered with malafide intention.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
It was argued that by the confinement of the petitioner under the preventive detention order his right to move freely throughout the territory of India is directly abridged and therefore the State must show that the impugned legislation imposes only reasonable restrictions protecting the interests of any Scheduled Tribe, under Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India.
RESPONDENT
On behalf of the respondent, it is pointed out that Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees only the right to constitutional remedy to enforce the rights which are declared by the Constitution. If there are no rights under the Constitution, guaranteed to a person who is detained under any law of preventive detention, no question of enforcing such rights by an approach to this Court at all arises.
HELD
● The act was proclaimed to be intra wires to the Indian constitution.
● Article 21 applies to the provisions of this Act.
● Section 14 was declared Ultra vires of the Indian Constitution.
●As per Section 12 of the Act, a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 1-year imprisonment is prescribed.
●Also, if it is not necessary for the parliament to determine the maximum term of detention.
The verdict handed down by the judges was their attempt to define the jurisprudence of a new constitution law for the people who just got independent from colonial rule. They held that the law states that detention was preventive in the interest of the general public and therefore does not have to satisfy the test of reasonableness, even if overlapped the fundamental rights as provided for in the Constitution of India.
CONCLUSION
In the case of AK Gopalan, the Court interpreted Article 21 literally and went on to ensure that the expression procedure established by law meant any procedure prescribed in the statute by the competent legislature that may deprive a person of his or her life or personal liberty.
Fundamental rights through the reasoning of procedural by the due process are now being studied separately, as explainedfrom A.K. Gopalan's case, which was condemned and understands the substantive due process which was brought in for future cases. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India,[3] the Apex court held that Article 21should be fair, just, and reasonable and should also be consistent with the principles of equality and freedom under Article 13 and 19 of the Indian Constitution, and therefore provisions of fundamental rights were established to be read together.