Q. In which of the following cases, Supreme court held for the first time that the ‘‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the expression ‘due process of law’?
Exp) Option a is the correct answer.
In Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court took a wider interpretation of Article 21. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how arbitrary or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had been suitably passed and enacted.
However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21, the court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case effectively meant that ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the expression ‘due process of law’.
In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court stated that Article 21 would read as: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It also ruled that the expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man.
