A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
P. ANBUNILA
BHARATH INSTITUTE OF LAW
This Case Commentary is written by P. Anbunila, a Third-year law student of Bharath Institute of Law
A. CASE DETAILS:
1. JUDGEMENT CAUSE TITLE / CASE NAME: A.K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS
2. CASE NUMBER: PETITION NO 13 OF 1950
3. DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT: MAY 19, 1950
4. JURISDICTION: HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5. CITATION: AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88 ; (1950) 51 cri LJ 1383
6. BENCH: KANIA C.J, FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEE, S.R.DAS
7. APPELANT: A.K. GOPALAN
8. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADRAS
9. PROVISIONS INVOLVED ARTICLE 20 AND 21 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1950
B. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
A.K. Gopalan was a leading member of the communist party of India who was detained in the Madras Jail on the grounds of the Preventive Detention Act 1850. He asserted his release, for he said his civil liberty was infringed and that he had the right to be treated equally as the laws provided for. The Supreme Court examined the claim that he had been imprisoned in terms of the provisions of the law as provided and thus rejected his claim. During the period, the Supreme Court of India assumed that every article of the Indian constitution was distinct. The A.K Gopalan v/s State of Madras was the case that was taken for the hearing in the Supreme Court of India on 15th December 1950. This case is very significant in the history of the Indian legal system because it formed the basis on which citizens’ rights under the preventive detention laws were upheld. This was during the case of A.K Gopalan against the state of Madras where the ‘Preventive Detention Act of 1950’ was put forward stating that the government had the authority to detain people and a person could not claim that they should be produced before trial if the government believes they are a threat to national security. It is a law that was challenged by a communist leader A.K. Gopalan on the grounds of its unconstitutionality. The Indian Supreme Court passed in favor of the law and further allowed the detention of individuals unless they posed a threat to the security of the country without a trial.
C. FACTS UNDER THE CASE OF A.K.GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS
In this case, the appellant was A K Gopalan commonly known as AKG an Indian Communist leader who dedicated many of his years to the Indian communist party. He was arrested under the act of Preventive Detention Act of 1950. According to him, he was imprisoned in jail for about a period of four years from 1947 without any trial. He was made to fall foul of the criminal laws which were annulled. The very government of Madras not only passed an order on the 1st of March, 1950 when he was still in jail. He complained that the principles of natural justice were not followed in his case and was never afforded a fair hearing.
Mr. Gopalan then filed a writ petition under Article 32(1) of the Indian constitution against the order given under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Detention Act, 1950 under habeas corpus. He argued that the order that was passed under the Prevention and Detention Act is infringing his rights as enshrined In Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian constitution. He went further to say that the order that was issued against him was done with mala fide intention. Along with that, it was further told to him that 'procedure established by law' under Article 21, intends to mean, the 'due process of law'. Talking about his scenario, the procedure established by law was not followed, and thereby it is a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of 1950.
D. ISSUES RAISED UNDER THE CASE A.K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS:
In AK Gopalan vs State of Madras 1950, the explanation of fundamental rights in preventive detention came under contention. The different issues covered in the case included whether the Prevention and Detention Act 1950 contravened Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian constitution. Is there any connection between Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution? And lastly, whether his natural justice is violated or not?
E. JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court conducted the arguments between parties and concluded that there is no nexus between Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution.
Lastly, the court held that this case did not violate the principles of natural justice.
The court further held that if the state strips a person of his liberty under the law, i.e. if the detention was made lawfully, it cannot be said that it violates the norms of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also dismissed the writ petition filed by Mr. Gopalan. A landmark Indian case is A K Gopalan vs. The State of Madras.
The Supreme Court, under the severability doctrine, termed Section 14 as unconstitutional and violates basic rights. The court upheld the concept of legal procedure and held that the due process clause and international human rights conventions are applicable in Indian courts. The Court of India held the detention of the petitioner unlawful and issued the writ of habeas corpus. Holding judgment, the Court concluded that Section 12 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was void. Upon the second limb of the question, the Court further held that the provisions of Section 14 violated and abridged the provisions of Articles 22(5) and 32 of the Constitution of India. This is because all six judges penned down their opinions individually. The majority said that Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited reporting on the reasons for detaining a suspect, was unconstitutional. The judgment was not concurring but the Honorable Justice Fazl Ali dissented. It is also looked at as a landmark case in that, the issue of the Preamble was also brought to the court. The Supreme Court may then rule that the preamble cannot be used for interpreting the Constitution.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVINSIONS:
The AK Gopalan vs State of Madras 1950 case examined several major constitutional provisions:
ARTICLE 21:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law"
ARTICLE 22:
Protections against arbitrary arrest and detention. The right to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Protection against detention beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
2. PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1950
The Preventive Detention Act, under which Gopalan was detained, allowed the State to detain individuals without trial if they were deemed a threat to public order or national security. The case questioned the constitutionality of this Act and whether it provided adequate protections against arbitrary detention.
SECTION 12:
The authority's power to detain a person for preventive measures if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent the person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state or the maintenance of public order.
SECTION 14:
The procedural safeguards for a detained person. It mandates that the grounds for detention must be communicated to the detained person as soon as possible and allows for representation against the detention.
F. RELEVANT CASE LAW:
Article 21, the Supreme Court, in the Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India case, propounded that procedure relating to Article 21 must be reasonable, just, and proper and in conformity with the provisions of the equality clause under Article 14 and freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian constitution which establish that the fundamental rights are part of the constitution which are to be construed together.
The Fundamental Rights are now read independently as interpreted in the Gopalan’s case, which was condemned, and the reading of the substantive due process, which was brought in for the next cases, via the verified logic of procedural but by due process.
G. ANALYSIS:
A.K. Gopalan vs. the State of Madras is one of the significant cases wherein the apex court of India interpreted the provision under the Indian constitution. It is a landmark case in the legal history of India. This case is also significant because it was one of the first cases in India where natural justice concepts were put into practice. This case is also important because it established the principle that the Indian Constitution is a living document and can be interpreted considering changing times and circumstances. The Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 in the A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras, restricted it by disregarding its true significance, and decided in the government's favor. After some time, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment with the determination that affirmed Justice Fazl Ali's conclusion in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978.
H. CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS:
In the A. K. Gopalan case, the Supreme Court of India limited Article 21 to mean right over one’s body and nothing more. The arrest caused debate and future legal evolution that enlarged the liberty of individual/ basic rights under the Indian Constitution. A. K. Gopalan and the State of Madras is one of the leading cases in the legal development in India. The court case outlined some of the basic tenets as far as the Indian individual’s rights are concerned. It also gives an understanding of ‘Due processes in India. It gave birth to ‘Natural Justice’ wherein it was laid down that the government cannot act unfairly. The concept of natural justice. As it is said here it is talking about fairness and justice. It remains a landmark decision in the matrix of Indian constitutional law and liberty as well as security. The Supreme Court told people that preventive detention by the government is all right in certain circumstances. They ratified the legislation that enabled the government to detain AK Gopalan without trial. And they said that if there was some legislation extant, even if not the most impartial, somebody could be detained for it. This case defined laws of preventive detention in India as well as the spectrum of government movements with respect to personal freedom.
I. REFERENCE:
1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Gopalan_v._State_of_Madras
3. https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1251.pdf
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-1950/