The concepts of "procedure established by law" and "due process of law" are fundamental to understanding individual rights and legal protections within a democratic society. While these terms are often conflated, they represent distinct legal doctrines with different implications for the justice system.

This article aims to explore the nuances of these concepts, particularly within the context of the Indian legal framework, as articulated through constitutional provisions and judicial interpretations. Key landmark cases, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, are analyzed to illustrate the critical differences between these two doctrines and their significance in safeguarding individual rights.

Introduction
The Indian Constitution, crafted as a comprehensive document to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice, embodies principles that govern the legal treatment of individuals. Among these principles, the terms "procedure established by law" and "due process of law" are pivotal. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, articulating that no individual shall be deprived of these rights except according to a procedure established by law.

However, the notion of "due process" emphasizes fairness, justice, and adherence to natural justice principles, shaping the interpretation of law and its application. Understanding the distinction between these concepts is vital for legal practitioners, scholars, and the judiciary, as they delineate the parameters of legal authority and individual freedoms.

Procedure Established by Law

The term "procedure established by law," as found in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, posits that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. This doctrine emphasizes that the law must define the process through which an individual can be deprived of their rights. However, it does not inherently require that the process be just, fair, or reasonable.

In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court of India expanded the interpretation of this phrase. The Court held that while the procedure must be established by law, it must also adhere to the principles of fairness and justice. The case involved the seizure of Maneka Gandhi's passport without adequate procedural safeguards. The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure outlined in the Passport Act did not meet the standards of fairness and, therefore, violated her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Similarly, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of police surveillance and its impact on personal liberty. The Court found that the lack of proper procedural safeguards rendered the surveillance unconstitutional, reinforcing the principle that statutory provisions must align with fundamental rights. This case illustrates that while laws may define procedures, they must not infringe upon individual liberties without adhering to principles of natural justice.

Due Process of Law

In contrast, "due process of law" encompasses a broader principle grounded in the concepts of fairness, justice, and equality. Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly use the term "due process," the Supreme Court has interpreted it in the context of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The essence of due process is that individuals are entitled to fair treatment under the law and that legal proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court, in the Maneka Gandhi case, emphasized that the procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable. The judgment established that laws depriving individuals of their liberty must not only comply with statutory requirements but also respect fundamental rights and principles of due process. This decision marked a significant evolution in the interpretation of constitutional rights, positioning due process as a critical safeguard against arbitrary state action.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of due process in ensuring the protection of individuals from discrimination and harassment. The Court established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, emphasizing that due process extends beyond mere procedural compliance to include substantive rights and the need for effective implementation of legal protections.

Key Differences:

1. Nature of Provisions:
   • Procedure Established by Law: This doctrine refers to the legal processes defined by statutory provisions. It allows for the possibility of deprivation of rights as long as a legal procedure exists, irrespective of its fairness or reasonableness.
   • Due Process of Law: This principle incorporates the notions of justice and fairness, requiring that all legal proceedings adhere to natural justice. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary and unjust laws.
      
2. Judicial Interpretation:
   • Procedure Established by Law: The judiciary interprets this doctrine as requiring compliance with legal provisions, but it does not mandate that the procedure be just or equitable. Judicial review focuses on whether a legal framework exists rather than its alignment with fundamental rights.
   • Due Process of Law: The judiciary interprets due process as requiring that legal proceedings must be fundamentally fair. Courts scrutinize the substance and application of laws to ensure they do not violate the principles of justice.
      
3. Scope of Rights Protection:
   • Procedure Established by Law: The framework allows for legal processes that may potentially infringe upon individual rights, provided that the law prescribes a specific procedure.
   • Due Process of Law: This doctrine protects against arbitrary state actions, ensuring that individuals are afforded fair treatment and are not deprived of their rights without just cause.

Conclusion
The distinction between "procedure established by law" and "due process of law" is essential for understanding the protection of individual rights within the Indian legal system. While the former emphasizes compliance with statutory provisions, it does not guarantee fairness or equity in legal proceedings. In contrast, due process requires that such proceedings adhere to the principles of justice, thereby safeguarding against arbitrary state actions.

The evolving interpretation of these doctrines by the Supreme Court underscores the necessity for legal frameworks to align with the broader objectives of justice enshrined in the Constitution. As guardians of the law, legal practitioners, scholars, and the judiciary must remain vigilant in advocating for these fundamental rights to ensure that the rule of law encompasses not just procedural compliance, but also substantive justice.

References:

• The Constitution of India
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1964) 1 SCR 332
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241