Q. What is due process of law? How it differs from procedure established by law?
Ans: Due Process of Law is a legal doctrine that ensures fair, just, and non-arbitrary treatment of individuals by the state before depriving them of life, liberty, or property. It requires not only that a law exists, but also that the law itself and the procedures it mandates are reasonable, equitable, and in line with fundamental rights. This concept is rooted in natural justice and is widely practiced in countries like the United States.
In contrast, Procedure Established by Law is a narrower principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure laid down by law. It emphasizes legal validity over fairness, meaning that if a law is properly enacted and followed, it is constitutionally valid—even if it is unjust or arbitrary.
Key Differences Between the Two:
- 1. Origin and Scope
- Procedure Established by Law: Derived from Japanese and British legal traditions; focuses on legal procedure.
- Due Process of Law: Originates from the U.S. Constitution; includes both procedural and substantive fairness.
- 2. Judicial Review
- Procedure Established by Law: Courts check if the law was properly enacted and followed.
- Due Process of Law: Courts also examine whether the law itself is fair, just, and reasonable.
- 3. Protection of Rights
- Procedure Established by Law: Offers limited protection; unjust laws may still be upheld.
- Due Process of Law: Provides stronger safeguards against arbitrary laws and actions.
- 4. Indian Context
- Initially, India followed a strict interpretation of Procedure Established by Law (e.g., A.K. Gopalan case).
- Post-Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court expanded Article 21 to include elements of due process, requiring laws to be fair, just, and non-arbitrary.
Conclusion: While Procedure Established by Law ensures adherence to legislative procedures, Due Process of Law goes further by demanding justice and fairness in both the law and its application. In India, judicial interpretation has gradually bridged the gap between the two, making Article 21 a powerful shield for individual liberty and constitutional morality.