Introduction 

This foundational Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Kania along with Justices Mukherjee, Das, Patanjali Sastri, and Fazl Ali, addressed the critical constitutional question of the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). The Court ruled that Article 21 required only "procedure established by law" and not "due process of law," thereby upholding the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. This judgment established the compartmentalization theory of fundamental rights and significantly influenced constitutional interpretation in post-independence India, though it was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). 

Facts of the Case 

• A.K. Gopalan was a prominent Communist leader and Member of Parliament who had been under continuous detention since December 1947 under various preventive detention orders. 
• Initially detained under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, he was later detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 
• On 20th February 1950, the Government of Madras issued a fresh detention order under Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, directing his detention for one year. 
• The grounds of detention were communicated to him on 25th February 1950, stating that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
• While under detention, Gopalan was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under ordinary criminal law, but these convictions were later set aside. 
• On 6th March 1950, A.K. Gopalan filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the detention order and seeking a writ of habeas corpus. 
• He contended that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. 
• The petitioner argued that the detention order was issued with mala fide intention and that the Act itself was unconstitutional. 
• He specifically challenged Sections 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as being violative of constitutional provisions. 
• The case was heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, given its constitutional importance and implications for personal liberty. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether Article 21 embodies the principle of "due process of law" or merely requires "procedure established by law." 
• Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. 
• Whether there exists any overlap or interconnection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21. 
• Whether Sections 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 of the Preventive Detention Act were constitutional. 
• Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the preventive detention proceedings. 
• Whether the Act violated the right to equality before law under Article 14. 

Court's Observations 

• Chief Justice Kania's Observations and Majority Judgment: 
  • Established that Article 21 merely requires "procedure established by law" and does not incorporate the American concept of "due process of law." The Court held that if there exists a law prescribing a procedure, Article 21 is satisfied regardless of whether the procedure is fair or just. 
  • Ruled that fundamental rights under different Articles are mutually exclusive and do not overlap. The Court held that Articles 19 and 21 operate in separate spheres and cannot be read together. 
  • Interpreted "personal liberty" in Article 21 narrowly as referring only to physical freedom from restraint and not including broader freedoms covered under Article 19. 
  • Upheld the constitutional validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, holding that preventive detention was permissible under Articles 22(3) to 22(7) of the Constitution. 
  • Declared Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act unconstitutional as it violated Article 22(5) by prohibiting the detenu from disclosing grounds of detention to the court. 
  • Held that principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, do not apply to preventive detention proceedings as they are not judicial proceedings. 
• Justice Fazl Ali's Dissenting Observations: 
  • Dissented from the majority view, arguing for a broader interpretation of Article 21 that would include principles of natural justice and fair procedure. 
  • Argued that fundamental rights should be read harmoniously and that Article 21 should be interpreted in light of other fundamental rights. 
  • Emphasized that the Constitution should be interpreted to protect individual liberty effectively, not merely to validate state action. 
  • Stressed the importance of procedural safeguards in detention cases and criticized the majority's narrow interpretation. 
• Additional Observations: 
  • The Court recognized the Parliament's competence to enact preventive detention laws under Entry 3 of List I and Entry 3 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. 
  • Acknowledged that preventive detention was a necessary tool for maintaining public order and security in the nascent Indian state. 
  • Established important precedents for constitutional interpretation, emphasizing textual interpretation over expansive judicial construction. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, dismissed A.K. Gopalan's writ petition and upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except for Article 14 which was declared unconstitutional. This landmark judgment established that Article 21 requires only "procedure established by law" rather than "due process of law," and that fundamental rights under different Articles are mutually exclusive. The Court's narrow interpretation of personal liberty and validation of preventive detention significantly influenced constitutional jurisprudence until it was overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).