Due Process of Law: A Comparative Analysis, Article 21 of IC

Introduction

The concept of “Due Process of Law” is a fundamental principle in legal systems that ensures the fair treatment of individuals under the law. It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government. Originating from the Magna Carta (1215), this principle has evolved significantly, becoming an essential aspect of constitutional law in many democratic nations, particularly in the United States and India.

In contrast, the Indian Constitution primarily adheres to the doctrine of “Procedure Established by Law,” which means that a law, if duly enacted, is valid even if it is unjust or arbitrary. However, through judicial interpretation, India has gradually embraced elements of due process, bringing its legal framework closer to that of the United States.

This article delves into the meaning, scope, and application of the due process of law, comparing it with the procedure established by law and analyzing how both doctrines function in the United States and India. Additionally, it examines landmark judicial pronouncements that have shaped these doctrines.

Understanding Due Process of Law

The term “Due Process of Law” ensures that laws are fair and reasonable and that individuals receive impartial treatment. The doctrine has two primary components:

Procedural Due Process – This ensures that legal proceedings are conducted fairly, providing individuals with a right to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Substantive Due Process – This focuses on the content of laws themselves, ensuring they are just, reasonable, and not arbitrary.

The due process clause is prominently embedded in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Fourteenth Amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Due process in the United States extends beyond procedural fairness, allowing courts to assess the reasonableness of laws and their compatibility with constitutional rights.

Procedure Established by Law in India

The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Unlike due process, the phrase “procedure established by law” suggests that if a law is duly enacted, it is valid irrespective of whether it is just or arbitrary. This doctrine limits judicial review, focusing solely on whether the correct procedure has been followed rather than assessing the fairness of the law itself.

However, over time, the Indian judiciary has expanded its interpretation of Article 21 to incorporate elements of due process, particularly through the principle of “fair, just, and reasonable law.”

Comparison: Due Process of Law vs. Procedure Established by Law

Feature	Due Process of Law (USA)	Procedure Established by Law (India)
Definition	Ensures both procedural fairness and substantive justice	Ensures only procedural compliance with the law
Scope	Broad, includes judicial review of both laws and government actions	Narrow, originally limited to procedural legality
Judicial Power	Courts can declare laws unconstitutional if they are unjust, arbitrary, or violate fundamental rights	Initially, courts could not question laws if duly enacted, but later evolved to check for reasonableness
Protection	Provides strong protection for individual rights	Provides protection, but limited by legislative authority
Example	Roe v. Wade (1973) – Right to privacy under due process	A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Narrow interpretation of Article 21

Judicial Pronouncements in the United States

Several landmark judgments have defined and expanded the scope of due process in the United States:

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established the principle of judicial review, empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

2. Lochner v. New York (1905)

Introduced the concept of Substantive Due Process, holding that the state could not interfere with individual liberty beyond a reasonable extent.

3. Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Distinguished between fundamental and non-fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause.

4. Roe v. Wade (1973)

Recognized a woman’s right to abortion under substantive due process, holding that privacy rights were fundamental.

5. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Legalized same-sex marriage, emphasizing that laws must meet a standard of fairness and justice under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Judicial Pronouncements in India

In India, the Supreme Court has gradually expanded the concept of procedure established by law, integrating elements of due process.

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

Initially upheld the strict interpretation of “procedure established by law,” allowing deprivation of life and liberty as long as the procedure was followed.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Overruled A.K. Gopalan, holding that any procedure affecting life and liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, bringing Indian jurisprudence closer to due process.

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting the power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights.

4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)

Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include prisoners’ rights and protection from inhuman treatment.

5. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, similar to the U.S. due process approach.

Impact and Modern Relevance

United States

Due process remains a cornerstone of constitutional law in the U.S., ensuring that individual rights are protected from government overreach. With evolving social and legal landscapes, courts continue to interpret due process to protect rights such as digital privacy, reproductive freedoms, and non-discrimination.

India

Although India’s legal framework follows “procedure established by law,” judicial activism has transformed it into a more expansive and protective system. The Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation has ensured greater safeguards for fundamental rights, particularly concerning privacy, personal liberty, and social justice.

Conclusion

The distinction between Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law highlights the different approaches taken by the U.S. and Indian legal systems. While the U.S. framework provides broad protection by allowing courts to assess the reasonableness of laws, India’s approach was initially rigid but has evolved to incorporate fairness and justice through judicial interpretation.

Judicial pronouncements in both nations reflect the continuous effort to balance individual liberties with state interests. The gradual shift of Indian jurisprudence towards due process principles underscores the importance of ensuring that legal procedures are not just followed but are also just, fair, and reasonable.

As democracies evolve, ensuring that legal doctrines uphold constitutional rights remains crucial. While the U.S. has a well-established tradition of substantive due process, India’s transformation in safeguarding fundamental rights through judicial activism represents a significant advancement toward a more equitable and just legal system.