• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Legal News
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)

Latest News

Back

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)

Courtesy/By: Nishiket Dave  |  08 Nov 2020     Views:50911

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)

CASE INTRODUCTION

It is one of the most common and known cases. This is the first case held by the apex court in which various articles of the Constitution of India contained in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights and were discussed. The main articles like 19, 21 & 22 were dealt with in this case. Nearly after 30 years of this case, the Apex Court did away with the restrictive view of the rights embrace therein, by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Nevertheless, for the jurisprudence of Fundamental rights in India, it still makes an important part of the evolution. The most conspicuous feature of this case is its dissenting verdict given by Justice Fazl Ali, one of the two dissenting judges in a six judges bench. The dissenting judgment given by him back in 1950, went on to become an example of personal liberty and liberalized viewpoint for the fundamental rights.

CASE FACTS

In this particular case the petition was made by Mr. A. K. Gopalan under Article 32(1) of the Constitution of India, In pursuance of an order made under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, a writ of Habeus Corpus was filed against his detention. Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader, and since December 1947 he had been under detention, as imprisonment under ordinary criminal laws he was convicted & sentenced. However, these convictions were overruled by the court. A.k. Gopalan when detained, on 1st March 1950, was served upon an order by the State Government of Madras, made under section 3 (1) of the particular Act, which confers upon the State or Central Government. After then he challenged in court the legitimacy of the order under the Act on the ground that the Act violates humans fundamental rights as the provisions given under Articles 13, 19 & 21, and the provisions of this Act 4 of 1950 of Madras State are not in conformity with Article 22 of Indian Constitution. Mr. Gopalan also contended that the order issued was malafide.

ISSUES

  • Whether the detention Act of Madras State contravene the provisions of Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
  • Whether the State’s detention Act, 1950 provisions in accordance with Article 22 of the Indian Constitution?

REASONING/ARGUMENTS

In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, it was held by the majority judges that punitive and preventive detention were outside the ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and hence the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 had not violated it. It was also contended by the court that the said article which provides protection to citizens who are free, therefore not the citizen whose freedom is restrained by law, and the question of enforcing Article 19(1) does not arise.

The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 has followed the valid procedure as in the form enacted by the state’s law and therefore the Apex court came upon the argument that it does not infringe upon the rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Various provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 are covered under Article 22 and those which are not, are added through the aspects of Article 21. The Apex court held that Section 3 of the Act was justified and as it was valid to provide such discretionary powers to the executive, in addition with the majority court also agreed upon the validity of Section 7 and 11 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as under Article 2(7)(b) the parliament has not mandatory power to set a minimum detention period and under Article 22(5) and 22(6) the right of representation which off to be heard verbally are not necessary. Section 14 of the said Act was also declared ultra vires because it contended the court’s right to determine the validity of detention.

JUDGEMENT FOR A. K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS

It was held by the Supreme Court of India, that any of the sections of the Preventive detention Act, IV of 1950 has infringed the provisions of Part III of the constitution barring Section 14 of the Act, restricting the declaration of the grounds of detention. Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950 was declared Ultra Vires, nonetheless the declaration by the court did not affect the validity of the act as a whole.

Dissent

The important dissent was given by Fazl Ali as he said, the court when analyzing fundamental rights violations needs to coordinately interpret the various Articles under Part III of the Constitution of India and not merely as silos. Further, Section12 and 14 of the Act while contravening Article 22 of the Indian Constitution were also contended to violating freedom and personal liberty of the individual. Moreover, Justice Mahajan differed in his conclusion and holding Section 12 to be ultra-vires while agreeing to the majority judges' interpretation.

AFTERLIFE: A. K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS

The Fundamental rights through the reasoning of procedural by the due process are now read separately, as interpreted in the A.K. Gopalan’s case, which was denounced and the understands the substantive due process which was brought in for the upcoming cases. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, the Apex court held that the procedure for Article 21 has to be just, fair and reasonable and also should be in accordance with the principles of equality and freedom under Article 13 and 19 of the Indian Constitution, thus the provisions of fundamental rights were established to be read together.

Conclusion

This is a landmark Judgement contended by the bench of 6 Judges where the majority opinion in the case was that article 21 which covering procedure established by law would simply mean the law established by the state. The meaning of Law in itself is intended upon, and it is contended that it would provide a too wide understanding of reading it within rules of natural justice as the connotations of natural justice leaving them formerly undefined. This verdict progresses from the idea of law and natural morals which are uncleared. Professor Hart, who said that there is a link between law and morals but there is no interdependence. The court in the said case exaggerated this reasoning through the interpretation that there is a specific standard set for law which is the formulation through legislation and legitimizes it.

Furthermore, it is well quoted by the court that law was meant to be understood as “jus” that is, a law in the abstract sense of principles of natural justice and not as “rex” that is, enacted law. The true form of legitimacy for any law is the recognition of the principles of natural justice.

 


Document:


Courtesy/By: Nishiket Dave  |  08 Nov 2020     Views:50911

News Updates

Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:63
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:62
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:56
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:65
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:88
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:83
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:150
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:88
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:132
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:131
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:206
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:159
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:115
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:148
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:133
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:99
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:110
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:229
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:305
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:197
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:239
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:175
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:167
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:267
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:209
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:173
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:226
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:245
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:136
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:245
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:148
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:209
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:152
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:206
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:246
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:285
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:203
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:316
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:160
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:204
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:203
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:206
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:806
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:583
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:951
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:466
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:546
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:575
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:529
Supreme Court sends a notice about a petition for ...
09 Jan 2023     Views:768
The Meghalaya High Court's hold on the MoU definin...
08 Jan 2023     Views:780
Google's appeal of the ?1,337 crore fine from the ...
04 Jan 2023     Views:242
SC Issues Notice In A Batch Of Pleas Challenging T...
03 Jan 2023     Views:315
The Supreme Court rejects appeals against the 2016...
02 Jan 2023     Views:305
Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar rema...
01 Jan 2023     Views:331
Gender Discrimination in intestate succession unde...
29 Dec 2022     Views:552
Section 300 CrPC BarTrial of a Person Not Only for...
29 Dec 2022     Views:422
Centre Informs Rajya Sabha That There Is No Propos...
28 Dec 2022     Views:314
Calcutta High Court: Depriving wife of her Stridha...
27 Dec 2022     Views:464
Sec 498A: An Apology should be tempered with genui...
24 Dec 2022     Views:290
Kerala High Court: Search engines like Google cann...
23 Dec 2022     Views:387
Rules of the Game Cannot be Changed After the Game...
23 Dec 2022     Views:1167
Bombay High Court: Social Media has become an impo...
21 Dec 2022     Views:437
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail to Murder Accused ...
19 Dec 2022     Views:373
Sec 438 CrPC: Anticipatory Bail Plea is Not Mainta...
19 Dec 2022     Views:540
Rights of secured creditors under SARFAESI, Recove...
18 Dec 2022     Views:298
Can a man accuse his wife of domestic violence? De...
17 Dec 2022     Views:576
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BAIL PROVISIONS UNDER THE IND...
15 Dec 2022     Views:580
Guardianship of an illegitimate minor granted to h...
14 Dec 2022     Views:280
Under the POCSO Act, rehabilitation of the victim ...
14 Dec 2022     Views:293
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BAIL PROVISIONS UNDER THE IND...
13 Dec 2022     Views:785
The current collegium system shouldn't be abandone...
10 Dec 2022     Views:337
Framing of a uniform marriage code applicable to a...
09 Dec 2022     Views:425
Telangana High Court: Appropriation of a Decree of...
07 Dec 2022     Views:283
Appointment Cannot Be Denied Merely Because The Ca...
06 Dec 2022     Views:485
FIR has been Lodged for Settling Monetary Dispute-...
06 Dec 2022     Views:341
Form 16 Issued By Employer Is Reliable Evidence To...
06 Dec 2022     Views:755
Bombay high court issued instructions in a PIL loo...
06 Dec 2022     Views:578
CA Cannot Be Prosecuted for ingenuine documents su...
05 Dec 2022     Views:486
Bombay High Court Slams Maharashtra's State Mental...
04 Dec 2022     Views:208
Ex-parte order passed by Delhi High Court for prot...
04 Dec 2022     Views:267
AFTER HAVING CONSENSUAL INTERCOURSE, DECLINING TO ...
30 Nov 2022     Views:463
Allahabad HC Rules That Marriage Certificate Issue...
29 Nov 2022     Views:495
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ASKS BCI TO REPLY TO THE PLEA ...
28 Nov 2022     Views:217
Second and Successive Anticipatory Bail Applicatio...
26 Nov 2022     Views:304
Court Sentences Man To Six-Month Imprisonment For ...
26 Nov 2022     Views:216
Delhi High Court awards grande legal costs of Rs. ...
24 Nov 2022     Views:316
What Will Happen If Lawyers Go on Strike and Meet ...
23 Nov 2022     Views:276
KERALA HC HELD THAT HUSBAND IS LIABLE FOR SEX WITH...
23 Nov 2022     Views:1252
SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Two Child Pol...
22 Nov 2022     Views:248
DUE TO DISTRICT JUDGES' RELUCTANCE TO GRANT BAIL O...
21 Nov 2022     Views:209
Supreme Court seeks Union Government to answer a p...
21 Nov 2022     Views:287
SOCIETY'S OUTRAGE NOT GROUND TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEE...
20 Nov 2022     Views:255
Plea for guidelines on seizure of digital device...
19 Nov 2022     Views:286
MLA Poaching case...
19 Nov 2022     Views:212
Supreme Court stays Bombay High Court's observatio...
18 Nov 2022     Views:310
P&H HC SAYS, CHEQUE BOUNCE COMPLAINT FILED ON THE ...
16 Nov 2022     Views:246
J&K will always be part of India; Civil society gr...
15 Nov 2022     Views:251
POCSO not meant to criminalise consensual romantic...
14 Nov 2022     Views:297
CONTEMPT OF COURT CAN’T BE ISSUED ON THE SHEER G...
14 Nov 2022     Views:312
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:90590
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:62912
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:62848
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:56690
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:50911
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

Allow Cookies!

By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1127 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.