The 'procedure established by law' was firstly interpreted as 'procedure prescribed by the law of the state'. It is mentioned U/A 21 of the constitution .

Article 21: "Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty: No Person Shall Be Deprived Of His Life Or Personal Liberty Except According To Procedure Established By Law."

It refers to just, rational, fair, and fair treatment under the regular judicial process.

It requires:

1. There is existence of an enacted law authorizing interference with the life or personal liberty.
2. The law should be valid.
3. The procedure laid down by the law must be followed.

In absence of any of these conditions any deprivation of life and personal liberty of a person by authority violates Article 21.

Historical Background
B.N Rau was the principal adviser to India's Constituent Assembly, which was debating a constitution for the newly independent country. Having prepared the first version of the proposed charter, Rau was in the United States to meet constitutional experts on a trip that also took him to Canada, England, and Ireland. He called on Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court. A leading public intellectual and jurist, Frankfurter closely followed political developments in India. Rau shared his first draft with Frankfurter. Upon reviewing it, Frankfurter objected to a clause which guaranteed that no person's "life or personal liberty" could be taken away except "by due process of law."

Rau had borrowed this language from the American Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. But Frankfurter warned Rau that the term "due process of law" could embolden Indian judges to indiscriminately invalidate economic and welfare laws, duly enacted by the people's representatives, for violating an individual's liberty.

Returning to Delhi, Rau reported Frankfurter's views to the Constituent Assembly's president. By then, the assembly's drafting committee had begun preparing an official draft constitution for public consultation. The draft constitution, published in February 1948, pointedly omitted the expression "due process of law" from Rau's basic draft. In its place, the draft constitution provided that no person could be deprived of their life or personal liberty "except according to procedure established by law."

For his part, Ambedkar seemed uncharacteristically ambivalent. He conceded that without due process, partisan legislatures could trample on individual liberties. He was, however, unwilling to let unelected judges decide whether a law was a good or bad one. Ambedkar's position is surprising. It was he who first put due process on the Assembly's agenda. Having switched sides in the drafting committee, Ayyar argued before the assembly that it was better to trust the legislature than risk a chamber of judges that could hinder the people's elected representatives.

The real reason behind the change, however, seems to be the nature of the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. Abuse of substantive due process by the U.S. Supreme Court11 led B.N. Rau to point out, long before any draft was presented to the Constituent Assembly, that a due process clause would get in the way of beneficial social legislation.13

The famous interaction that took place between B.N. Rau and Justice Felix Frankfurter was the last nail in the coffin.Justice Frankfurter persuaded Rau to believe that the power of judicial review implicit in the due process clause was undemocratic and burdensome on the judiciary. Rau was finally able to convince the Drafting Committee and the due process clause was omitted, though not without considerable opposition. Another factor put forth for this change was the very real problem of communal violence facing the country in the aftermath of partition. It was believed that preventive detention policies used during the British colonial rule without constitutional guarantees of due process would be the most effective in checking communal violence.

Draft article 15 was adopted by a voice vote. It was later renumbered and became Article 21 in the final Constitution. The drafting committee's decision to drop due process generated considerable opprobrium within and outside the Assembly. Troubled by the protests, Ambedkar belatedly introduced a new provision: article 15A (which eventually became Article 22 in the final Constitution). The article's first clause guaranteed every arrested person the right to legal representation and to be informed about the grounds for arrest.

The second clause required arrested persons to be produced within twenty-four hours before the nearest magistrate. Ambedkar offered these provisions "as compensation". The assembly's decision to omit due process considerably curtailed citizens' ability to challenge laws and government actions that infringed their liberties. Barely a few months after the Constitution came into force, the Supreme Court declined to release the Communist leader A.K. Gopalan[1] from preventive detention.

US Constitution
'Due Process' clauses of the 5th Amendment of the US Constituion[2] . Under American Law the liberty is better protected than under Indian Law. The US Supreme court has interpreted the guarantee to mean that courts can examine a law to ascertain if it is a just and fair in its procedure as well as substance[3].

Understanding The Due Process
It refers to just, rational, fair, and fair treatment under the regular judicial process. For example, accused must be given the chance to present his/her own defence before being sentenced.

That a person cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without following the right legal processes and protections. Therefore, due process upholds a person's constitutional rights, which is a legal necessity. Due process safeguards a person's rights and regulates the power of the law. It usually presented as a directive to the government not to treat the people unfairly. every legal right a person has under the law must be respected by the government. Due process safeguards people from state misconduct and makes the government accountable to the law of the land[4].

Two Categories
Constitutional due process falls into two categories:

1. Substantive Due Process
2. Procedural Due Process.
    

Substantive due process:
The judicial examination of the fundamental elements of the legislation are consistent with the Constitution is known as substantive due process. It anticipates that the substantive provisions of any legislation should be rational and not arbitrary in nature. It is a principle that enables courts to defend particular fundamental rights against interference from the government. It establishes the boundary between the actions that courts deem to be within the ambit of governmental regulation or legislation and those that courts deem to be outside of its purview. It calls for the inherent legitimacy of the law to infringe upon an individual's right to life, liberty.

Procedural due process
It is a reasonable process, meaning the aggrieved party should have an equal right to a hearing. It refers to the general procedures that must be followed before a person's life, liberty, or property can be taken from him. Whether a government body has violated a person's life or liberty without following a fair legal process is determined by procedural due process. When a government violates someone's rights without according to the letter of the law, it is an offence against the rule of law and a violation of due process. It might entail an examination of the overall fairness of a legal process.

Courts Interpretation:
Under INDIAN Constitution word DUE PROCESS is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It is brought out from leading cases and golden triangle of Article 14,19 and 21.

The judicial interpretation of article 21 has brought out definitions of due process. Constitution assembly drop out the word Due Process after the basic draft of B.N RAU[5] and Ambedkar in compensation of these provide Article 22. In leading cases SC expanded the horizon of article 21[6].

Cases:

1. A.K Gopalan v/s State Of Madras 1950
   A communist leader named AK Gopalan was imprisoned in Madras Jail under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Act through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the basis that it infringed upon both personal liberties under Article 21 and freedom of movement under Article 19 (1) (d). The Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was deemed to be constitutional by the SC in this judgment, which also focused on the distinction between the Doctrine of Due Process and the Procedure established by Law. The SC decided that the phrase "procedure established by law" should be interpreted literally.
   
   The Court stated that it is evident from the Constitution's Drafting Committee with regard to Article 21 that the Constituent Assembly originally used the phrase "due process of law" before abandoning it in favour of "procedure established by law." The phrase "procedure established by law" must refer to a procedure outlined by the State's legislation.
   As a result, due process was not upheld in India due to the A.K. Gopalan case setting a precedent. Finally, it was dismissed in the following case.
    
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978
   In this case, the petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976, in accordance with the Passport Act of 1967. On July 7, 1977, Maneka Gandhi got a letter from the regional passport officer in New Delhi ordering her to surrender her passport within seven days in the interest of the public as stated in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. She asked why her passport was being held in custody. In contrast, the authorities said that it was not in the "general public's interest" to know the reasons. The petitioner responded by filing a writ petition under Article 32, claiming that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was unconstitutional due to breaches of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
   
   The act in question was deemed to be violative by the court. It underlined that a law's justification should be considered in addition to its formalities. The Court ruled that Article 21's procedure must be free from arbitrariness and inconsistency even though the expression "procedure established by law" is used instead of "due process of law" as it is in the American constitution. As a result, the legal method in India must be followed, and the procedure itself must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary. It is acceptable to say that while the doctrine of due process isn't fully enforced in India as it is in the United States, the fundamental principles of the doctrine are upheld here, protecting people's rights. This formula is, in fact, the theory of due process.
    
3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
   The legislation must be just, fair and reasonable whether protection of Article 14 and Article 15 is available or otherwise, and legislation providing for deprivation of must satisfy the requirements of being fair ,just and reasonable. Maneka Gandhi, natural justice has gradually made its way into Indian constitutional legal thought, with consequences for how constitutional clauses are interpreted. Paradoxically, the Constituent Assembly sought to circumvent this discrepancy by substituting due process with the legally prescribed procedure, which has led to more ambiguity and power for the court.
   
   Basic differentiation between the two procedures:
   • Procedure established by Law: Establishing a law has been followed correctly, a law that has been duly enacted by the legislature or the body in question is valid.
   • Due process of law: Due process of law checks whether the law enacted is fair and not arbitrary.
   • The judiciary assesses the procedure of the legislation and its competence only.
   • If the Supreme Court of India finds that any law is not fair, it will declare it as null and void.
   • Compared to 'due process of law', it is narrow in scope.
   • The due process of law gives wide scope.
   • The Supreme Court, while determining the constitutionality of the law, examines whether the law is within the powers of the authority concerned or not. It judges its procedure.
   • The Supreme Court analyses the procedure and the rationale of the law. It judges its reasonability.
   • The state can deprive the basic rights if it follows the proper process.
   • The state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person.
   Relationship Between Article 14, 19 & 21
   It has been by court that the impression of exclusivity of different fundamental rights, particularly of article 19 and 21, which left in the A.K. GOPALAN CASE, was removed by the Maneka Gandhi case and the Bank Nationalization case. It has been found that the establishing relationship between Article 14, 19 & 21 is a requirement of reasonableness of law providing deprivation of life and personal liberty.
   
    
4. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India 1970
   Procedural due process to legally required procedure, also known as the Bank Nationalisation decision, overruled the Goplan case and determined that fundamental rights are not a comprehensive code. Parliament attempted to overturn the Bank Nationalisation case ruling with the 24th and 25th amendments. Additionally, the parliament established its authority through Articles 13 and 368. The DPSP's Article 31-C protected the law from judicial review. As long as it doesn't go against the "fundamental structure of the Constitution," Parliament's ability to change the Indian Constitution is acceptable. The theory of basic structure is analogous to the substantive due process of law in the USA.
    
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admin. 1978
   The Court held that our constitution has no 'due process' clause but after the Maneka Gandhi and Cooper case, the same has been derived, and the consequences are the same.
   SC held that Article 21 is the counterpart of the procedural due process in the US.

Expanding Horizons of Article 21
Article 21 under the ambit of right to liberty would include:

• The right to equal opportunity
• The right to freedom under Article 19
• Right against exploitation
• The right to freedom of religion
• Cultural and educational rights
• Remedies constitutional right
• Right to education
• Right against arbitrary arrest and detention
• Prohibition of child labour and trafficking

Bhagwati J. also observed as under:[15]
"We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings…it must in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights.

Conclusion
Our constitution makers had replaced Expression 'due process of law' by 'the processor established by the law'

The power of the judge, the fairness or justness of the procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 is one thing. That power can be spelled out from language of that article. Power to decide upon the destination of the road itself is quite another thing. Power Springs from 'due process' provisions. Such as is to be found in the 5th and 14th amendment of the US Constitution, by which no person can be travel deprived of life personally but your without due process of law.

The phrase used in Article 21 is procedure established by law instead of due process of law as found in the American constitution, the procedure must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality. Thus establishing the rationale in India as- Procedure Established by Law + The procedure should be fair and just and not arbitrary.

End Notes:

• A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
• United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130
• A.K Gopalan v. state of Madras 1950
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
• Advisor to Constituent Assembly
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017
• AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
• AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
• 2017 10 SCC 1. AIR 2017 SC 4161
• A.k Gopalan v. union of India AIR 1950
• 1978
• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India 1970
• 5th & 14th amendment
• 1978 4SCC 494, AIR 1978 SC 1675
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors 1980 2 SCR 557