Two standards for protecting life and liberty. "Procedure established by law" (the Indian text of Article 21) asks only whether a valid law lays down a procedure; "due process of law" (the American standard) lets courts also test whether that law and procedure are fair, just and reasonable.
- Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law"; the framers deliberately chose this phrase over "due process".
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) took the narrow view: any procedure laid down by a valid law sufficed, with little scrutiny of its fairness.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) transformed the position: the procedure must be "right, just and fair" and not arbitrary, effectively importing substantive due process into Article 21.
- The shift linked Articles 14, 19 and 21 together, so a law affecting personal liberty must also pass the tests of equality and reasonableness.
- This expanded reading has since grounded rights to privacy, dignity, livelihood and a speedy trial.
The Gopalan-to-Maneka shift and the wording of Article 21 are among the most tested polity points, central to the rights-versus-security balance CAPF emphasises.
India's text says "procedure established by law", but after Maneka Gandhi (1978) the courts read in a fairness requirement close to American "due process".
Article 21 says "procedure established by law"; Maneka Gandhi (1978) read it to require a just, fair and reasonable procedure, approaching due process.