A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras

• A.K. Gopalan, a Communist Party leader in Madras, was detained under S.3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950
• He challenged the detention by filing a habeas corpus petition under Art.32
• He argued the Act violated Arts.14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
• The Constituent Assembly had deliberately chosen "procedure established by law" over "due process of law" (rejecting the American model)

1. Whether "procedure established by law" in Art.21 requires the procedure to be fair, just, and reasonable.
2. Whether Arts.14, 19, and 21 are interconnected or operate in separate watertight compartments.

• Majority: "Procedure established by law" means ANY procedure prescribed by a law enacted by a competent legislature. It does NOT require the procedure to be just, fair, or reasonable.
• Arts.14, 19, and 21 are SEPARATE and operate independently; a law affecting personal liberty under Art.21 need not satisfy Art.19 (freedoms) or Art.14 (equality)
• The Preventive Detention Act was a validly enacted law prescribing a procedure; Art.21 was not violated
• Fazl Ali J (dissenting): "Procedure established by law" should include principles of natural justice; the majority's view leaves life and liberty at the mercy of legislative whim

Where the Constitution uses "procedure established by law" (Art.21), it requires only that deprivation of life or liberty follow a procedure prescribed by enacted legislation. The court will not examine the intrinsic fairness, justice, or reasonableness of that procedure. This represents a positivist interpretation.