Search results
Answer: D. Notes: Exp) Option d is the correct answer. The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India. This judgement led to the first amendment of the Constitution of India.
- Introduction
- A K Gopalan vs State of Madras – Case Facts
- Petitioner’S Contention
- Respondent’S Contention
- Issues Raised in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
- Judgment of A K Gopalan vs State of Madras Case
- Observations of The Judges in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras
- Afterward A K Gopalan Case
- A K Gopalan vs The State of Madras – Judgment Analysis
A K Gopalan vs State of Madras is a landmark case for the Indian judiciary. It is referred to as a landmark case as well as the first case where the Indian Supreme Court dealt with various articles enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution as well as gives certain principles. The case mainly dealt with Article 19 (1), 21 and 22which enshr...
Petitioner A.K. GopalanRespondent State of Madras & Union of IndiaCitation: AIR 1950 SC 27Decided on: 19 May 1950M.K. Nambiar appeared petitioner’s counsel. The petitioner’s counsel primarily argued the legality and validity of the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which they believed violated the Fundamental Rightsof Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22. They thought that it was because: 1. Article 19(1) (d) of the Indian Constitution, 1950, states th...
Advocate K. Rajah Aiyar (Advocate-General of Madras), and M.C. Setalvad (Attorney-General of India) representing the State of Madras and the Union of India respectively. 1. The respondent contended that Sections 19 and 21 should not be read together, but rather separately. The article mentioned in 19 (1) (a) to (g) should be considered separately f...
The issues raised in the A.K. Gopalan Vs State of Madras case are as follows – 1. Whether the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution? 2. Whether there is a connection between Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, or are they distinct? 3. Whether the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, under Article 22 of the ...
The A. K. Gopalan Case, also known as the Preventive Detention Case, is a landmark decision in Indian legal history. The case’s decision reflected the legal status of various constitutional provisions. It extensively examined the phraseology and terminology of several provisions, as well as correlated the relationship between the fundamental rights...
Majority opinion
The majority of the Supreme Court judges concluded that phrases that are identical in two distinct provisions cannot be interpreted in the same light and that the words have the same meaning. In case of the petitioner’s claim of a violation of his Fundamental Right under Article 21, the interpretation and application of the phrase “procedure established by law” does not equate to “due process.” The framers of the constitution would have said plainly if the legislature meant that these two wor...
Dissent / Minority opinion
Out of 6 judges on a bench, Justice Fazal Ali has a dissent opinion in the A K Gopalan Vs State of Madras case. In his dissenting opinion, he stated that the Act could be challenged under Article 19 of the Constitution. He defined ‘personal liberty’ as freedom of movement and locomotion in a comprehensive sense. As a result, any law that restricts a person’s personal liberty must comply with Articles 19 and 21.
In 1978, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, landmark case dealt by the Indian Judiciary which overruled the judgment of A K Gopalan Vs the State of Madras and upheld the dissent opinion of Justice Fazal Ali. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure for Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, as well as und...
In this case, the Court interpreted Article 21 immensely factually, concluding that the phrase “procedure established by law” referred to any procedure enshrined in statute by the competent legislature that could deprive a person of his life or personal liberty. It was also stated that the Courts were not permitted to include concepts such as natur...
May 23, 2022 · The Supreme Court at Bombay and Madras was established by a charter of 1753. The powers of the Recorder Court were transferred to the Supreme Court and exercised the same jurisdiction and same restrictions as the Supreme Court.
Jan 24, 2023 · The case of Smt. Champakam Dorairajan v/s state of Madras is a landmark case that was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1951. This case along with the case of Romesh Thappar v/s state of Madras, led to the first amendment of the Indian Constitution.
Apr 22, 2022 · In A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of Article 21 and restricted it by diminishing its real value and gave the decision in favour of the government. However, among the 6 judges’ bench, only Justice Fazl Ali was not favouring this judgment.
Sep 17, 2020 · State of Madras vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan is a landmark case delivered by the Supreme Court of India that, along with Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950), led to the first amendment to the Indian Constitution In 1951. The State of Madras was the petitioner in the case and Smt. Champakam Doralrajan was the respondent. BACKGROUND.
People also ask
What was the significance of Champakam Dorairajan vs State of Madras?
When was Supreme Court established in Madras?
What is a K Gopalan vs State of Madras?
How did state of Madras v State of India affect constitutional amendments?
Feb 2, 2024 · In the riveting legal narrative of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), a pivotal chapter unfolds in the constitutional history of India, reshaping the contours of reservation policies and the principle of equality.
