A.K.Gopalan vs.

State of Madras: Case Summary

It was the first case which involved various articles and deals with the constitutionality of a
statute. In this case, the first provision was declared ultra-virus of the constitution. In this case
various issues were discussed at length at Apex Court. This case is popularly known as
Preventive Detention Case.
Case Name: A.K.Gopalan vs. State of Madras.
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88.
Bench: 6 judges bench was constituted in this case the bench comprised of H.J.Kania CJ,
Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Shashtri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K.Mukherjee, and S.R.Das
JJ.
Decided On: 19-05-1950.
Facts of the case:
A.K.Gopalan was a politician who was detained in prison since 1947 and was detained under
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Petitioner challenged his detention through writ of Habeas
Corpus under article 32 of Indian Constitution. Petitioner contended that section 7, 8, 10,
11,12,13,14 of the act violates article 13,19and21 of Indian Constitution. The petitioner raises
question as to the ‘procedure established by law’ clause of the Indian constitution.
Issues of the case:
This case involved the following issues for determination of the case. The issues were as
follows:
 Whether section 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are ultra-virus and violates the Art. 13, 19
and 21.
 Whether the article 19 and 21 are interrelated to each other in protection of life and
liberty.
 Whether the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 is
illegal.
 Whether article 22 is the complete code in itself while dealing with the preventive
detention cases.
Argument advanced:
M.K.Nambiar was the advocate from the petitioner while the State was represented by K.
Rajah Aiyer (Advocate General of Madras) and M.C.Setlvad (Attorney General of India).
Petitioners argued for the unconstitutionality of the abovementioned act.
Nambiar argued that right of movement is the essence of liberty and the detention was not
under the reasonable restriction clause provided in article 19 he advanced to correlate this
article with article 21 of the Indian constitution. Apex Court rejected this plea on the ground
that article is a substantive right of liberty while article 21 is a procedural safeguard against
its deprivation. Court further observed that these two articles does not operate in
conterminous field.
Mr Nambiar further advanced that the word law under article 21 must be understood in the
sense of natural justice and must follow the due procedure of law clause as the American
Constitution. Apex Court observed it as its literal meaning and considered it as positive or
State made law.
Judgement:
The judgement in this case is the most important verdicts of the Supreme Court. The court
dealt with all the issues rationally and the judgement can be briefed as follows:
 Court applied the Doctrine of severability and declared section 14 void as the court
finds it unconstitutional and voilative of Fundamental Rights.
 Court declared section 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 as intra-virus the constitutions hence valid.
 Court asserted the principle of procedure established by law and declared the
application of due process clause and international human rights charters inapplicable
in Indian premises.
 Court found that the detention was legal and hence writ was disposed of accordingly.
Apex court rejected the contention that article 19 and 21 are interrelated for protection of
liberty of individuals. However this judgment was reversed in case of Maneka Gandhi vs.
Union of India1 (passport detention case). However this judgement still works as landmark in
Preventive Detention cases.

1
1978 SCR (2) 621