Procedure Established by Law: Definition and Meaning

Procedure Established by Law means a law adopted by the legislature or the relevant authority is valid if it has followed the proper procedure. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with the procedure established by law." That is, a person's life or personal liberty might be taken away according to the procedure established by law. 

What is Procedure Established by Law?

Procedure Established by Law indicates that a law that has been lawfully adopted by the legislature or the related authority is legitimate if it has followed the correct procedure. Following this idea entails that a person may be deprived of his or her life or personal freedom in accordance with the legal process. The life or personal liberty of a person can therefore be taken away in accordance with the terms and processes of legislation passed by Parliament.

A law that has been legally passed is legitimate even if it contradicts notions of justice and equity. Strict adherence to legal procedure may increase the risk of endangering an individual's life and personal liberty as a result of unjust legislation enacted by the legislative authority.

Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)

• Article 21 is established as a basic right in Part III of the Constitution. It is recognized as one of the most important and forward-thinking provisions in our country's constitution. It can be used only when the "state," as defined in Article 12, deprives a person of his or her life or personal liberty. As a result, a violation of the right by a private individual falls beyond the scope of Article 21.

• The Indian Constitution protects two Fundamental Rights in Article 21 −

  • The right to life

  • The right to personal libert

• The significance of Article 21 is that the two rights mentioned above cannot be revoked without the proper procedure. This means that the rights indicated above, notably life and personal liberty, can be removed if the legislature follows the proper procedure

• The decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) significantly enlarged the reach of Article 21 and realized the Preamble's purpose of transforming our country into a welfare state.

• The Court determined that the judicial process must be fair, just, and reasonable. According to the Court, the legal method for depriving someone of their right to life and personal liberty must be valid, reasonable, and fair, rather than discretionary and arbitrary.

Role of the judiciary

• The Judiciary will assess whether the Legislature is competent to approve the law and if correct legislative procedure was followed, but it will not determine the bill's objective.

• When compared to "due process of law," it has a limited reach since it does not evaluate whether the legislation contradicts principles of fairness and equity.

• When deciding whether a statute is constitutional, the Supreme Court only addresses the substantive question of whether the conduct is within the authority's powers or not.

• A rigorous and inflexible commitment to legal procedure may enhance the chance that individuals' lives and personal liberties will be jeopardized as a result of unjust laws passed by the law-making authorities.

• As a result, the mechanisms established by law safeguard individuals against the executive's arbitrary acts.

Judicial Pronouncement

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case (1978)

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India was a major Supreme Court of India case in which the Court considerably broadened the meaning of Indian Constitution Article 21. According to the court, the expression "personal liberty" should be interpreted flexibly and liberally rather than strictly and rigorously.

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shavian Shukla

The ADM Jabalpur case is a significant Supreme Court of India habeas corpus decision. During the 1975–1977 Emergency, PN. Bhagwati gave a disputed judgment in which he said that a person's right not to be unfairly detained might be revoked.

The Court reversed its own decision when a national emergency was proclaimed in 1975. The Court upheld the sentence under the 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), while dismissing Article 21 fully. The court declared that Article 21 is suspended during an emergency. As a result, the court will only evaluate the actual meaning of the Procedure Established by Law in this matter. The Court made no ruling on whether or not the government act (MISA, 1971) was just, fair, or reasonable.

A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras

In Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling, concluding that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to use a due process of law standard. The constitutional bench of six judges on the Supreme Court decided this issue by a 5:1 majority.

Conclusion

Although the Procedure Established by Law has a very limited reach, it is recognized as a law under the Indian Constitution. "Legislation-enforced procedure" states that a law that has been legitimately adopted is valid, even if it breaches fairness and equitable standards. Strict adherence to legal procedure may increase the likelihood that people's lives and personal liberties will be jeopardized as a result of unjust laws issued by the legislative body.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is the distinction between legal procedure and due process of law?

Ans. It provides the courts with minimal authority. It puts more authority in the hands of the judges. Individuals are protected by law against the arbitrary actions of merely the executive. Individuals are protected by due process of law from both arbitrary executive and legislative action.

Q2. From which country's constitution did the Indian Constitution borrow the feature of procedure established by law?

Ans. Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution inspired the Indian Constitution's feature of procedures established by law.

Q3. What are the features of the procedure established by law?

Ans. The procedure established by law denotes that a law that has been lawfully adopted by the legislature or the body in issue is legal if the technique for establishing a law has been followed appropriately. The Judiciary will assess whether the Legislature is competent to approve the law and if correct legislative procedure was followed, but it will not determine the bill's objective. When compared to "due process of law," it has a limited reach since it does not evaluate whether the legislation contradicts principles of fairness and equity.

Q4. What do you mean by Due process of law?

Ans. Due process requires that legal concerns be dealt with in line with established norms and principles and that everyone be treated fairly. Due process applies to both civil and criminal actions.