Meaning Of Procedure Established By Law
In a series of cases, the phrase "procedure established by law" has been interpreted differently. A review of these cases reveals that courts have broadened the scope of the expression during the judicial interpretation process. The Supreme Court held that “procedure established by law” in Article 21 refers to procedures prescribed by law as enacted by the state, rather than the American “due process of law.”
However, the Supreme Court of India held in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India that the legal procedure for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be "right, just, and fair," not "arbitrary, fanciful, and oppressive," or it would be no procedure at all, and the requirement of Article 21 would not be met. As a result, in India, the "procedure established by law" has acquired the same weight as the "due process of law" clause in the United States.
Does India Follow Procedure Established By Law?
Although "our Constitution does not have a due process clause," Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer stated in Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration that "the consequence is the same and as such Article 21 may be treated as a counterpart of the due process clause in the American Constitution."
The Supreme Court has recently heard cases involving an increasing number of people sentenced to death for "bride-burning." The Rajasthan High Court sentenced a man, Jagdish Kumar, and a woman, Lichma Devi, to death in December 1985 for killing two young women by setting them on fire in two separate cases. The court ordered both prisoners to be executed in front of the public in an unprecedented move.
The Supreme Court stayed the public hangings in December 1985 in response to a review petition filed by the Attorney General, stating that "a barbaric crime does not have to be met with a barbaric penalty." The execution of a death sentence by public hanging, according to the Court, is a violation of Article 21, which requires the use of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.
Thus, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court of Rajasthan order for public hanging, citing, among other things, that it was in violation of Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled in Sher Singh v State of Punjab that an unjustifiable delay in the execution of a death sentence is a violation of art 21.
The Supreme Court believes that this article, taken as a whole, is concerned with an individual's full development and ensuring his dignity through the rule of law. Every procedure must appear'reasonable, fair, and equitable.' The right to life and personal liberty has been broadly interpreted to include the right to a decent life, as well as the right to livelihood, health, education, and the environment.
The standard for procedural fairness has been determined to be one that is proportional to the protection of such rights. Thus, even though the State cannot affirmatively provide a livelihood for all, a hire-fire clause in favour of the State is not reasonable, fair, or just where workers have been deemed to have the right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood.
The Court will consider not only whether the procedure itself is reasonable, fair, and just, but also whether it has been carried out in a fair, just, and reasonable manner under this doctrine. For example, any reasonable, fair, and just procedure includes the right to a speedy trial and legal aid. The process clause is broad and applies to all aspects of government action, including civil, criminal, and administrative actions.
In one of its landmark decisions in the case of Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India stated that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no one shall be deprived of his life without due process of law. Smoking in public places, according to the Court, is an indirect deprivation of life for nonsmokers that occurs without any legal process. The Supreme Court ordered that smoking be prohibited in public places, citing the harmful effects of smoking on both smokers and nonsmokers.
It directed the Union of India, state governments, and union territories to take effective measures to prohibit smoking in public places such as auditoriums, hospital buildings, and health institutions. In this way, the Supreme Court gave Article 21 of the Constitution a liberal interpretation and broadened its scope to include nonsmokers' rights.
kept on tenterhooks and in suspense about the case's outcome There can be no cause of action if the investigating authority conducts the investigation in accordance with the Code's provisions. However, if the case is kept alive without any progress in the investigation, Article 21 is invoked, and the right is invoked not only against actual court proceedings but also against police investigation.
The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of "procedure established by law," holding that even if a procedure is established by law, a person's life and liberty cannot be taken away unless the procedure is just, fair, and reasonable. It is now well established that the "procedure established by law" to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive, and that the procedure must comply with natural justice principles in order to be valid.