The Supreme Court of India heard its first case involving the interpretation of fundamental rights in the constitution in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The court gave a narrow interpretation of personal liberty in Article 21 and found that the fundamental rights operated independently. This led to a strict textual interpretation of rights in later cases and legitimized preventive detention laws. Justice Fazl Ali dissented, arguing circumstances and classes of people detained should be clearly defined.

1. A.K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS
AND ITS EFFECTS
AIR 1950 SC 27
-Ayush Srivastava (200102004)

2. Article 21: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law”

3. Why this case?
 SC- “This is the first case in which the different articles of the
Constitution of India contained in the Chapter on Fundamental
Rights has come for discussion before us.”

4. CORAM: Jus. Hiralal Kania, Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri,
Meher Chand Mahajan, B. K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das
BRIEF FACTS
 A.K. Gopalan 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, 1950.

5.  A.K. Gopalan challenged the constitutionality of the Act and filed
a writ petition contending the violation of his rights under:
1. Article 19 (1) (d)- Right to freedom of movement,
2. Article 21, and
3. Article 22 of the Constitution

6. Court’s Decision/reasoning
Issue 1 and 2
1. Restricted interpretation of “personal liberty” and “procedure
established by law” in Article 21
2. Fundaments rights operate in silos

7. Issue 3: Discussion on Article 22
Article 22 (7)- Parliament may by law prescribe— (a) the
circumstances under which, and the class or classes of
cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer
than three months under any law providing for preventive
detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory
Board
As per Entry 9 of the Union List and Entry 3 of the
Concurrent List: (1) Defence of India, (2) Foreign Affairs, (a)
Security of India, (4) Security of the State, (5) Maintenance of
public order, (6) Maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community

8.  Government put all these grounds together (except for
maintenance of supplies) into the Sec. 12 of the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950
 4 judges did not find anything wrong in this.
 Jus. Fazl Ali- “it was never intended that Parliament could at
its will treat the normal as the abnormal or 'the rule as the
exception.”

9. •“circumstances to be prescribed must be special
and extraordinary circumstances”.
•“Constitution never contemplated that the Parliament
should mechanically reproduce all or most of the
categories A to F almost verbatim and not apply its
mind to decide in what circumstances and in what class
or classes of cases the safeguard of an advisory board
is to be dispensed with.”
•Highest possible burden on state to prove the
application of Article 22 (7)

10.  Interpretation of “and” in Article 22 (7)
 “and” to be interpreted conjunctively and not disjunctively
 Jus. Fazl Ali- both the circumstances and class of persons
should be defined
 Based on this reasoning, Jus. Ali struck down this law

11. Effect of Goapalan Doctrine
 Textualism (M P Sharma and Kharak Singh)
 Defending the Preventive Detention Law regime (Kartar
Singh)

12. “The consequence of Gopalan doctrine was that the
protection afforded by a guarantee of personal freedom
would be decided by the object of the State action in
relation to the right of the individual and not upon its
effect upon the guarantee”
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs.
Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]

13. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
[(1954) 1 SCR 1077]
 Government of India ordered an investigation under the
Companies Act, 1913 into the affairs of a company after it went
into liquidation in 1952.
 District Magistrate issued the warrant for searches and seizures.
 Petitioner argued that the searches violated Article 20(3)- right
against self incrimination.

14.  Court disagreed with the Petitioner’s contention that search and
seizure violated Article 20(3)
 It noted that during the process of a search and seizure, the
warrant was addressed to a government official, not the
owner of the premises
 Therefore, the accused had no role to play during the search
in producing evidence.
 It was the action of the government official which produced
evidence, rather than the accused being compelled to give
evidence.

15.  Court refused the argument that search and seizures violated
the right to privacy and said the Indian Constitution did not
have a fundamental right to privacy analogous to that of the
Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
 The Court refused to import the principles of the Fourth
Amendment in the form of the right to privacy.
 US Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

16. Kharak Singh v. State of UP
[1963 AIR 1295]
 Kharak Singh was challaned in a case of dacoity, but was
released as there was no evidence against him. Uttar Pradesh
Police subsequently opened a “history sheet” against him and
brought him under “surveillance”
 This was done in exercise of the powers under Chapter XX of
the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.
 Regulation 236 authorised six measures of “surveillance”: (a)
secret picketing of the house; (b) domiciliary visits at night;
(c) through periodic inquiries by officers not below the rank of
Sub-Inspector into repute, habits, associations, income,
expenses and occupation; (d) reporting by constables and
chaukidars of movements and absence from home; (e)
verification of movements and absences by means of inquiry
slips; and (f) collection and record on a history sheet of all
information bearing on conduct.

17.  Singh challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter XX, on
the ground that they violated his fundamental rights under
Articles 19(1)(d) — right to freedom of movement — and 21 —
protection of life and personal liberty.
 A six-judge Bench struck down Clause (b) — domiciliary visits at
night but upheld the rest.
 Court held that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right
under our Constitution, and therefore the attempt to ascertain
the movements of an individual is merely a manner in
which privacy is invaded and is not an infringement of a
fundamental right”

18.  Court decided to expand the meaning of “personal liberty”.
 Court said personal liberty does not only mean freedom from
arrest but also includes “within itself all the varieties of rights
which go to make up the personal liberties of man other than
those dealt with in Article 19”
 SC had made the famous remark in this case: “personal liberty
in Article 21 means not merely animal existence, but a right to
the possession of each of his organs his arms and legs etc”

19. Kartar Singh v State of Punjab
[(1994) 3 S.C.C. 569]
 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was
challenged
 On the ground it made departure from accepted principles of
criminal procedure such as allowing confessions made to police
officers, authorizing detention for up to one year etc.
 It was argued that these provisions violated Art, 14, 19 and 21.
 But, Court upheld the Act.

20. Conclusion
•Articles of Constitution work in silos
•Narrow interpretation of ‘personal liberty’ and
‘procedure established by law’
•“procedure established by law” means any law validly
enacted
•Majority saw Article 22 as a means to enact a
Preventive Detention law. Whereas, Jus. Ali and Jus.
Sastri saw Art. 22 as “putting safeguards”
•Effects- Textualism and Legitimacy to Preventive
Detention Laws