CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

ASSIGNMENT

COMPARE AND CONTRAST BETWEEN A.K GOPALAN V STATE OF

MADRAS (AIR 1950 SC 27) AND MANEKA GANDHI V UNION OF
INDIA (AIR 1978 SC 597) IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.

SUBMITTEd BY
ANAND GEO
1850508
5 BBA LLB B
 Compare and contrast between A.K Gopalan v State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) and
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) in the light of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
Article 21 of the constitution of India states about, Protection of life and personal liberty i.e.,
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law . In the A.K. Gopalan case, he was a communist leader who had been
imprisoned by the state of Madras in 1947 under convictions of ordinary criminal law,
however those convictions were set aside. While he was imprisoned, he was served with
another order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950. A.K. Gopalan
challenged the constitutionality of the act and filed a writ petition via article 32(1) contending
the violation of his rights under articles 19,21 and 22 of the constitution. Where as in the
other case the petitioner Maneka Gandhi , whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976, under
the Passport Act, 1967, and later on July 2nd, 1977, the Regional Passport Officer, New
Delhi, had ordered the petitioner to surrender her passport by a letter posted. On being asked
about the reasons for her passport confiscation, The Ministry of External Affairs declined to
produce any reasons “in the interest of the general public. “Therefore, the petitioner had filed
a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India stating the seize of her passport as
the violation of her fundamental rights ,specifically Article, Article 19 and Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Both the petitioners in the two cases , filed writ petitions , and they
both raised their issues with regard to article , 19 and 21 in common. The main issues which
were raised in the case of A.K Gopalan were , Does the detention act contravene the
provisions of Ar.19 and 21 of the constitution and , Are the act’s provisions in accordance
with Article 22 of the constitution? . While the main issues in the Maneka Gandhi case were ;
Is there any nexus between the provisions mentioned under Articles 14, 19 &21 , Scope of
the word “Procedure Established by Law.” , Whether right to travel abroad resides in Article
21, Whether a legislative law that takes away Right to life is reasonable. In the case of A.K
Gopalan v State of Madras the Court had interpreted Article 21 extremely literally and went
on to affirm that the expression procedure established by law meant any procedure which was
laid down in the statute by the competent legislature that could deprive a person of his life or
personal liberty. It was further avowed that it was not permissible for the Courts to
incorporate within the Article any such concept as natural justice, or the due process of law or
reasonableness. Therefore, the Court had declared that the procedure could not be challenged
even if it were not reasonable or not consistent with natural justice. The Court was wrong in
ruling that each fundamental right was independent of each other and that Article 19 applied
to a free man and not to a person in preventive detention. Where the Maneka Gandhi case , is
considered a landmark case and , it gave a new and highly varied interpretation to the
meaning of ‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it expanded
the horizons of freedom of speech and expression to the effect that the right is no longer
restricted by the territorial boundaries of the country. In fact, it extends to almost the entire
world. Thus the case saw a high degree of judicial activism, and ushered in a new era of
expanding horizons of fundamental rights in general, and Article 21 in particular. This case is
called as golden triangle case where art 14, 19 and 21 were challenged together and it was
appreciated by the apex court.