Introduction 

• It stands for rationality and fairness in the treatment before law.  
• Any inequality involved in the procedure of law will stand invalid. 
• The court incorporates its legislative mind while passing any statute on this ground.  
• The due process of law gives weightage to individual rights. 
• If the apex court found any law as biased, it will declare it null.  
• The law that got the assent of the state must be passed by following the basic process.  
• The term Due Process of Law is nowhere defined in the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• It not only rectifies if the procedure is complied with properly but also its fairness and unbiasedness.  

Background 

• It was traced under Article 39 of the Magna Carta in England.  
• It was later added into the Constitution of United States and was dropped by England.  
• Associate Justice Felix Frankfurte stated that the concept will lead toward more pendency of cases. The view was supported by B. N. Rau. 
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar included this concept into the COI after taking an influence from 4th and 5th Amendments of the American Constitution.  

Position in the Constitution 

• It is neither included nor defined under any Article of the COI.  
• The term procedure established by law under Article 21. 
•  has been deciphered as due process of law. 
• The Drafting Committee wanted to incorporate the word process established by law, but it was widely opposed for entrusting power in the hands of court.  
• The concept does not coincide with the golden triangle of Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21.  

Evolution through case laws 

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

• In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the COI did not require Indian courts to apply a due process of law.

Rustom Cooper v. Union of India (1970)  

• This case overruled the judgment of A. K. Gopalan case and gave prominence to basic structure, The basic structure is homogeneous to the due process of law under American Constitution.  

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)  

• This case was based upon the due process of law. It denied the arbitrary nature of any law restricting life and personal liberty of an individual.  

K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019)

• In this case, it was stated that the substitution of due process of law; by procedure established by law by the Drafting Committee has made it more cryptic and ambiguous.  

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India (2020)  

• The Supreme Court did not use the due process of law but stated that the objectives of legislative body behind adding any provision must be complied with while interpreting and executing it.  

Conclusion 

• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court interpreted the procedure established by law as the due process of law.  

• It means that the court will examine the fairness of any law legislation along with upholding the rule of law.  
• The court has the power to rationalize the fairness and non-arbitrariness of the process mentioned in any law.  
• The Constitution of India defends it through various mediums, but the doctrine is nowhere present in the literal form in it.