Before going to the details of due process of law, let me give you a real-time situation. Suppose you assume a condition when, anytime, for any reason, the government authorities come for a domestic visit and search for your house, belongings, or body.If authorities suspect you have committed a crime, they may use any method required to coerce you into providing information.Without ever knowing what you were accused of or having the chance to put up a defense, you could spend the rest of your life in jail.

As law-abiding individuals for the most part, the treatment described above by the government cannot be considered fair and just. India, luckily, is governed by the notion of due process of law. The government must abide by established laws when seeking to restrict or deny fundamental rights, such as a person's right to life, liberty, or property.

It basically means that the government must treat all of its citizens equally by complying with the law and following established standards. The due process clause is not a right in and of itself. Instead, it integrates a number of legal ideas that have evolved over time with our contemporary understanding of what "justice" as a concept entails.

What Is Due Process Of Law:

The term "due process" describes how a person should be treated throughout a standard court proceeding. For instance, before being condemned, the accused must be given the opportunity to provide their own defense. Let's look at the meaning of due process of law, which states that a person cannot be denied their life, liberty, or property without adhering to the required legal procedures and receiving the appropriate protections. Due process is therefore required by law since it maintains a person's constitutional rights. The protection of due process limits the power of the law and protects an individual's rights.

A common way to convey the concept of due process is as a request to the government to treat the populace equitably. Despite the fact that the phrase is usually unclear, many countries have legal systems that acknowledge some form of due process. When a person's life or freedom is taken away by the government, the due process clause must be fulfilled.

However, a clear definition of "due process" is lacking. According to the idea of due process, the government must uphold all of a person's legal rights. Due process protects citizens from state wrongdoing and holds the government responsible for upholding the law.

Dicey's Prospective On Due Process Of Law:

Dicey's rule of law, which states that no one can be condemned or lawfully compelled to suffer in person or property until there has been a specific legal offense that has been proven in a suitable legal manner before a proper court of law, is what distinguishes the English Constitution.

In other words, the rule of law is opposed to any type of government that is based on the application of sweeping, arbitrary, or discretionary constraints by those in positions of authority. The appropriate application of a statute created as a result of common law usages is all that Dicey's rule of law entails.

Types Of Due Process Of Laws:

The Two Aspect Of Due Process Of Law Defines As Follows:

Substantive due process and procedural due process are the two main subcategories of constitutional due process. These divisions between the two types of legislation lead to these groupings. Substantive law creates, defines, and controls rights, while procedural law carries out the enforcement of those rights or seeks redress when they are violated.

Substantative Due Process Of Law:

Substantive due process is the legal process of determining whether the fundamental provisions of a piece of legislation are in accordance with the Constitution. The constitutionality of the primary norm is more important to the court than the justice of the legal system. Therefore, every type of review is a type of substantive review, with the exception of those involving procedural due process. It assumes that any legislation's substantive provisions will be logical and not arbitrary.

It is a notion that permits courts to protect specific basic rights from governmental intrusion. It draws a line between behaviours that courts consider to fall inside the jurisdiction of governmental legislation or regulation and those that courts consider to be outside of it.It demands that an individual's right to life, liberty, or property be violated on the basis of the law's inherent legitimacy. For instance, a worker's right to substantive due process safeguards him against being let go without a justification, as required by law.

Procedural Process Of Laws:

The offended party should have an equal right to a hearing because it envisions a reasonable process. A person's life, liberty, or property cannot be taken from him without first following some general rules. Procedural due process determines if a government agency violated someone's life or liberty without following a just legal procedure. It is an offense against the rule of law and a violation of due process when a government violates someone's rights without following the text of the law. It can entail assessing the general fairness of the legal system.

Historical Evolution:

Dicey's rule of law, which states that no one can be punished or lawfully forced to suffer in body or property until there has been a specific legal offense that has been proven in a suitable legal manner before a proper court of law, is what distinguishes the English Constitution. In other words, the rule of law is opposed to any type of government that is based on the application of sweeping, arbitrary, or discretionary constraints by those in positions of authority.

The appropriate application of a statute created as a result of common law usages is all that Dicey's rule of law entails. Due process has a long history that dates back to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta, was a personal agreement between King John and the outraged upper classes and was not a law, laid the groundwork for the concept of due process with respect to Section 39.

The common law system is shaped and raised by customary practice. The American judicial system, however, took it a step farther and gave due process legal legitimacy. The English colonists brought ideas like "the law of the land" and "due process of law" to North America.

The US Congress adopted the first ten Amendments, often known as the Bill of Rights, to the Constitution, integrating human rights. Because it guarantees that a person's life, liberty, or property cannot be taken from them without first complying with the necessary legal procedures, the Fifth Amendment is very important . 14 th amendment gives the state the due process of law

Status Of Due Process Of Law In India:

Due process in India has advanced significantly in two key ways:

1. First, the interplay of Articles 14, 19, and 21 requires that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 to be just, fair, and reasonable;
2. The relationships between Articles 20, 21, and 22 as a corollary of advancement under Article 21 has greatly accelerated this idea. Article 21 of the Constitution states that "No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in the manner provided by law."

Despite the fact that Article 21 does not expressly specify any quality or norm for the procedure, its status as a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system forces it to absorb radiation from related articles like Articles 20, 22, 14, and 19 in order to satisfy the demands of justice.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the preservation of life and individual freedom. The Dr. Ambedkar-written laws must be followed if the state is to take away someone's life, liberty, or property. This clause has generated a lot of debate in the Constituent Assembly. Actually, Dr. Ambedkar borrowed this concept from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the American Constitution.

One of the most important decisions the Constituent Assembly had to make was whether to adhere to "due process of law" or the "method given by law." Mr. B. N. Rau promoted the viewpoint of Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter that the application of "due process of law" would increase the number of pending case.

Constitutional Perspective On The Due Process Of Law:

In order to rule the nation in conformity with the common law system of the United Kingdom, India adopted the parliamentary form of government. India also adopted the adversarial system of government from Britain. The excellent Indian Constitution establishes the legal framework for all domestic regulations. It tries to consider every situation in which laws are required to sustain the democratic process's flawless operation, making it one of the best world constitutions in comparison.

The Indian form of democracy is distinct in itself due to the Apex Court's skill and capacity to manage any extraordinary occurrence that arises in the legal and political system. India attained freedom after other countries throughout the world. The Indian Constitution is robust enough to deal with unusual situations.

The Indian Constitution includes clauses about "Due Process of Law" that are similar to those in the American Constitution. From an Indian perspective, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the crucial clause that protects an individual's rights to liberty and dignity.

The democratic system in India is divided into three pillars.

Each Has Its Own Functionalities And Areas Of Interest:

1. The First Pillar's responsibility is to create legislation as part of the nation's governance.
2. The Second Pillar is given the authority to carry out or implement the laws produced by the First Pillar.
3. The Third Pillar is given custody of the Constitution in order to preserve the validity of the Constitution's fundamental principles.

The third wing's tasks are incredibly reliable because they operate as the defender and custodian of the Constitution, regardless of the arbitrary actions of the first or second wings. Everyone is treated equally and has equal access to opportunities, according to the Indian Constitution. The third pillar's sovereign power is the Supreme Court of India, which regulates both Indian politics and the Constitution.

The architects of the Constitution specifically granted the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, which entitles it to annul or reject acts that the first pillar has approved if it is found that they violate the law. This is a question about whether the "Due Process of Law" framework is fair, suitable, righteous, and rigorous.

In addition, the Supreme Court of India strives to interpret the Indian Constitution's provisions on due process by reading Articles 14 and 21. This is carried out despite the fact that the Indians' authors willfully left out the words "due process of law" from their constitution.

Important case law:

A. K Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)

AK Gopalan, a communist leader, was jailed in Madras Jail under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. Through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the Act's constitutionality on the grounds that it violated freedom of movement under Article 19 (1) (d) and personal liberty under Article 21.

In this case, the SC held to a literal interpretation of the words "procedure established by law" and declared the Preventive Detention Act 1950 to be constitutional and further elaborated the difference between the doctrine of due process and the procedure established by law.

The court said:
"This is clear from the Drafting Committee of the Constitution in respect of Article 21, that the Constituent Assembly formerly used the term "due process of law' and later dropped it in favor of "procedure established by law'. The expression "procedure established by law' must mean procedure prescribed by the laws of the state.

Thus, the doctrine of due process was not enforced in India as the Ak Gopalan case became a precedent. It was overruled finally in the following case:

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi, the petitioner, was a journalist whose passport was issued under the Passport Act of 1967 on June 1, 1976. Maneka Gandhi received a letter from the regional passport officer in New Delhi on July 7, 1977, in which she was ordered to relinquish her passport in the public interest under section 10(3)(c) [4] of the Act within 7 days of receiving the letter. She enquired the reasons for impounding her passport.

The authorities, on the other hand, said that the reasons should not be revealed in the "interest of the general public." In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 stating that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was unconstitutional, citing violations of fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The court declared the act in question to be violative in nature. It emphasized the reasonability behind a law to be important, not just the procedure. With regards to Article 21, the court held even though 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.

This formula in essence is the doctrine of due process, thus we can safely conclude that the doctrine of due process isn't completely implemented as implemented in the USA, but the driving forces behind the doctrine are followed in India and thus the rights of people in India are protected.

The emphasis of case law is taken form the one of the article fof legal service India Doctrine Of Due Process Of Law.

Written By: Ark Sharma