The Difference between Rule of Law, Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law in India

Promoting Fairness and Justice through Constitutional Interpretation

In a democratic nation governed by the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that laws are made and administered in a fair and just manner. However, relying solely on the correct procedure and method of enactment does not guarantee this. Both the Indian Constitution and courts have recognized this need to balance procedural correctness with substantive fairness, leading to an evolution of jurisprudence.

Ensuring Procedural Validity through “Procedure Established by Law”

The doctrine of “procedure established by law”, as explicitly mentioned in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, requires that any restriction on life or personal liberty be according to a validly enacted law. On its own, this protects against arbitrary action by the state. However, a law could still be substantively unjust despite following proper procedure.

Reading in Due Process to Demand Fair Procedure

Recognizing this limitation, the Supreme Court in 1978 read the principle of “due process of law” into the Indian Constitution. This ensured that any procedure restricting liberties must also be right, just and fair on merits, rather than merely valid. Now, “procedure established by law” encompasses substantive fairness expected of due process of law.

Expanding Judicial Scrutiny to Check Unjust Laws

By interpreting Article 21 along with Articles 14 and 19, the judiciary has increased its power to analyze the reasonableness of laws. Striking down manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable legislation prevents circumvention of fundamental rights through unjust laws made correctly. This has reduced discretionary authority and established crucial checks and balances.

Integrating International Best Practices into the Indian System

While “procedure established by law” finds origins in Japanese law, due process has roots in common law traditions. The Supreme Court’s progressive interpretation has successfully integrated the two concepts, drawing from different legal systems to strengthen protection of individual liberties.

Adopting a Holistic Approach Focused on Fair Treatment

Seeking fair treatment for all, the judiciary now examines the procedure as well as merits to determine if restrictions truly respect rule of law ideals. This balanced, holistic view considers validity, reasonableness and non-arbitrary application jointly rather than in isolation.

Promoting Constitutional Spirit of Equality and Justice

By reading procedural and substantive guarantees into Article 21 collectively, courts fulfill the Constitution’s goal of securing citizens’ life and liberty under just laws. This evolved understanding of rule of law safeguards better reflect founding principles of equality, liberty and justice.

Consolidating a Progressive, Rights-Based Jurisprudential Tradition

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has established rule of law, due process and procedure established by law as closely interlinked in Indian constitutional law. This has set in place an expanded framework for judicial review that checks both procedural and merits-based aspects of restrictions. Most importantly, it consolidated a tradition of progressive, inclusive interpretation focused on substantive rights protection.