The Indian Supreme Court heard the A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras case on 15th December, 1950. This case is also known as the Preventive Detention case. It is a landmark case in Indian Constitution law deal with the interpretation of key fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution .As it established a precedent for the protection of individuals' rights under Preventive Detention laws .This was the first case after independence of India.

Background of the Case:
A K Gopalan, commonly known as AKG, was a prominent communist leader for many years he was detained by the state of the madras (now Tamil Nadu) under the Preventative Detention Act, 1950. He claims that he has been imprisoned since 1947 without being put on trial. He challenged his detention on several grounds, primarily arguing that it violated his Fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. He stated that he was not given a fair hearing and the rules of natural justice didn't apply in his case.

Fact of the Case:
In 1950, he was again detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Then Mr. Gopalan files a Writ petition under article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution known as Habeas Corpus Writ. He argued that the order violated his fundamental rights under Article 19 and Article 21. He said that the order against him was done by mala fide intention. He also stated that Article 21's definition of "procedure established by law" means due process of law. In his case the law was not followed, which is a breach of article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Issue Raised Before The Court:
There are several issues in this case:

• Whether the Prevention Detention Act of 1950 violated the Indian constitutions Article 14, 19, and 21?
• What is the scope of interpretation of the words-'procedure established by law' as laid down in article 21 of the constitution?
• Is there relation between the article 19 and 21?

Judges Bench:
The Supreme Court of India's constitutional bench of Six heard the case and delivered a decision on May 19, 1950.

Six judges name- M.H. Kania (CJI), Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali, Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice B.K. Mukherjee and Justice S.R. Das.

Arguments:
By the Petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, under which he was detained, on the grounds that the Act passed by Parliament was not in accordance with the standard of 'procedure established by law' prescribed under Article 21 and was violative of constitutional protections under that article.

By the Respondent:
It was argued by the respondent State that the term 'procedure established by law' means only any procedure established or prescribed by law made by the State, whereas the petitioner argued that the expression procedure established by law has to be interpreted in a wider sense. Needed Procedural due process was understood in American constitutional law.

Ratio of the Court:
Six members of the Supreme Court's constitutional bench rendered a 5:1 majority decision in this case. Justice Fazl Ali gave the dissenting opinion.

Dissenting Opinion: According to Justice Fazl Ali, It is permissible to interpret the expression 'procedural established by law' as meaning what American writers have read into the words "procedural due process", an expression which does not exclude certain fundamental principles of justice. He stated that this act should be struck down as unconstitutional as it violated the basic principles of natural justice and human rights.

Judgement:
AK Gopalan judgment was delivered by a bench of six judges where the majority opinion in the matter was that Article 21 which covered procedure established by law would simply mean to established by the state. The Supreme Court determined that there is no relation between Article 21 and 19 of the constitution. The court also declared that in this case the natural justices were not violated.

The Supreme Court finally dismissed Mr. Gopalan writ petition which also upheld the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 held that it did not violate the basic rights of the citizen under Article 19(1) (d) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Analysis:
The case of A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras is one of the most important case in which apex court of India interpreted the provision of Indian constitution. It is a landmark case in the legal history of India. This case is also important because it was one of the first cases in India where the 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 in the light of changing times and circumstances.

The Supreme Court interpreted Article 21's meaning in A.K. Gopalan V. State of madras, restricted it by disregarding its true significance, and decided in the government's favor.

After several years, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld Justice Fazl Ali's conclusion in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978.

Conclusion of the Case:
In the A.K. Gopalan case, the court restricted the scope of Article 21 such that it only refers to the freedom of individual's body and nothing else. It sparked debate and future legal development that expanded the protection of personal freedom and basic rights under Indian Constitution.

A.K. Gopalan and the State of madras is an important case in the history of Indian law. The court case set essential precedents for Indian individual's fundamental rights. It also explains the concept of 'Due processes in India. The case created and clarified the doctrine of natural justice which states that the government cannot act arbitrarily. This concept of natural justice is talks about fairness and justice.

The case continues to be a significant turning point in the development of Indian constitutional law and the harmony between personal freedoms and national security.