Search results
Union of India (1978) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require Indian courts to apply a due process of law standard. [1] In doing so, the Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with ...
- AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88; (1950) 51 Cri LJ 1383
- A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
- 19 May 1950
- Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India: ... on 19 May, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88, AIR 1950 SUPREME COURT 27, 1963 MADLW 638 Author: Hiralal J. Kania Bench: Hiralal J. Kania, Saiyid Fazal Ali, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea PETITIONER: A.K. GOPALAN Vs.
People also ask
Why was the Supreme Court rejected in Gopalan vs Madras?
What was AK Gopalan v State of Madras?
What is a K Gopalan vs State of Madras?
Who vs the state of Madras in 1950 Air 27?
- 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...
Jul 31, 2022 · Facts: Mr. Gopalan was detained by the Madras Government in Madras jail. While in detention the Madras Government served him with Section 3 (1) of Preventive Detention Act (P.D.A.). No reasons were accorded for the detention. He challenged the order in the court under a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 stating that the detention order was ...
Dec 28, 2021 · This article will look into to case brief on AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) Facts of the case: The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a communist leader in Tamil Nadu. There was an order issued for the detention of this person by the state government under the provisions of the preventive detention act of 1950. As per section 3 ...
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that dealt with the interpretation of key fundamental rights under Articles 19 (Right to freedom) and 21 (Right to life & personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The case is notable for its dissenting opinion given by Justice Fazl Ali, which later became an example of personal liberty and liberalized viewpoint ...
Apr 22, 2022 · Judgement of A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras. The judgment of this case was given by 6 judges constitutional bench of the Supreme Court with the ratio of 5:1 majority. Justice Fazl Ali gave the dissenting opinion. The court rejected the arguments given by A.K. Gopalan and said that personal liberty means freedom of the physical body only ...
