- CJI H.J. KaniaFavored (Majority)
- Justice M. Patanjali SastriFavored (Majority)
- Justice M.C. MahajanFavored (Majority)
- Justice B.K. MukherjeaFavored (Majority)
- Justice S.R. DasFavored (Majority)
- Justice Fazl AliOpposed (Dissent)
- Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Section 3, 12, 14)
- Constitution of India (Article 13, 19, 21, 22, 32)
This early landmark case dealt with the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader detained under the Act, challenged his detention via a Habeas Corpus petition, arguing it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 (freedom of movement), 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection against arrest and detention).
The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the validity of the Act. This judgment is notable for its narrow interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21, which was held to only protect against arbitrary executive action, not legislative action (i.e., a law passed by Parliament).
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (A.K. Gopalan)
- Detention under the Act violated the right to freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).
- The procedure established by the Act was not 'just, fair, and reasonable', thus violating Article 21 ('procedure established by law').
- Article 19 and Article 21 should be read together; a law affecting personal liberty must also satisfy the reasonableness test under Article 19.
- Section 14 of the Act, which barred disclosure of grounds of detention in court, was unconstitutional.
Respondent's Case (State of Madras)
- Article 19 only applies to free citizens, not those lawfully detained. Detention removes the substratum of freedom.
- Article 21 only requires a 'procedure established by law', meaning a law duly enacted by the legislature. The fairness of the law itself cannot be questioned under Article 21.
- Article 19 and Article 21 are mutually exclusive; they deal with different aspects of rights.
- Preventive detention is explicitly permitted by the Constitution under Article 22, and the Act follows the safeguards mentioned therein.
Case Progression Timeline
Preventive Detention Act Enacted
Parliament passes the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, allowing detention without trial for security reasons.
February 26, 1950A.K. Gopalan Detained
A.K. Gopalan is detained under Section 3 of the Act by the State of Madras.
March 1950Writ Petition Filed
Gopalan files a Habeas Corpus petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging his detention.
March/April 1950Supreme Court Hearing
A Constitution Bench hears arguments on the validity of the Act and its conflict with Fundamental Rights.
April/May 1950Judgment Delivered
The Supreme Court, by 5:1 majority, upholds the Act's constitutionality (except Section 14) but adopts a narrow interpretation of Article 21.
May 19, 1950The majority opinion held that Articles 19 and 21 were separate silos. Since Gopalan was detained under a specific law (the Act), Article 21 applied, and as long as the procedure laid down *in the law* was followed, the detention was valid. The reasonableness or fairness of the law itself couldn't be challenged under Article 21. Article 19 freedoms were deemed unavailable to those lawfully deprived of liberty.
However, the Court did strike down Section 14 of the Act, which prevented the detenu from disclosing the grounds of detention to the court, as it violated the basic right to approach the court.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The Court adopted a textual and positivist approach, focusing on the literal meaning of "procedure established by law" in Article 21, contrasting it with the American concept of "due process of law" which allows courts to examine the substantive fairness of the law. The majority refused to import "due process" principles, stating the Constituent Assembly had deliberately chosen the narrower phrase. They emphasized the doctrine of mutual exclusivity, holding that different Articles protected distinct rights without significant overlap. Justice Fazl Ali's powerful dissent argued for reading Articles 19, 21, and 22 together, advocating for a requirement of procedural reasonableness even under Article 21, foreshadowing the later shift in jurisprudence.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was held to be constitutional, except for Section 14.
- A.K. Gopalan's detention under the Act was deemed lawful.
- Section 14 of the Act, which barred disclosure of grounds of detention, was struck down as unconstitutional.
- The petition was largely dismissed regarding the challenge to the Act's overall validity and the detention itself.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Article 21 ("procedure established by law") only guarantees protection against arbitrary executive action and requires adherence to procedures laid down in a validly enacted law; it does not import the American concept of "due process" to allow judicial review of the law's substantive fairness. Articles 19 and 21 are mutually exclusive; fundamental rights under Article 19 are not available to a person lawfully deprived of their liberty under Article 21.
*(Note: This interpretation was significantly overturned later, primarily in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978)*