Difference between Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law

The primary difference between Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law is that the former applies more widely and subjectively to judicial review. The term Procedure Established by Law arises out of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides that citizens must receive protection under any law, good or bad, unjust or just, enacted by the legislature through due processes of its procedure. Thus, this principle lays emphasis on procedural sanctity rather than with considerations of substantive justice. Due Process of Law is an American perspective that embodies a wider spectrum in making sure that the law was properly enacted by the enactment; it also assesses the substantive fairness, reasonableness, and justice of the law itself. Therefore, the difference between Procedure Established and Due Process of Law is fundamentally about procedural adherence versus holistic examination of both the law and its application, with the latter offering greater protection of individual rights against arbitrary state actions.

In this article on the difference between procedure established and due process of law, the two types of procedures are discussed in detail. This is one of the important topics under the subject Indian polity for UPSC Civil Service Examination.

Download the Daily Current Affairs for UPSC Here!

Difference between Procedure Established and Due Process of Law

The key difference between Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law is that Procedure Established by Law mandates strict adherence to the legal procedures prescribed by law, regardless of the law's fairness. Due Process of Law requires that both the procedures and the laws themselves must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Difference between Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law
Aspect	Procedure Established by Law	Due Process of Law
Origin	Derived from the British legal system.	Originated in the American legal system, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Constitutional Reference (India)	Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."	The concept of "due process" is not explicitly stated but has been read into Article 21 by the judiciary.
Concept	Ensures actions are taken according to the formal legal procedures prescribed by law.	Ensures laws and actions are just, fair, and reasonable, considering both procedures and the substance of the law.
Focus	Emphasizes strict adherence to procedural formalities specified in the law.	Emphasizes both procedural fairness and the substantive justice of laws.
Judicial Review Scope	Courts limit their review to whether the procedure prescribed by law has been correctly followed.	Courts have the authority to assess not only whether the proper procedure was followed but also whether the law itself is fair and just.
Scope of Protection	Narrower scopes - Generally tend to ensure that only the laid down legal procedure is followed, irrespective of considering the fairness in procedure itself.	On the other hand, there are broader scopes here. This would include individual protection against unjust laws and procedures towards overall fairness and justice.
Impact on Fundamental Rights	Can uphold laws that may be arbitrary, as long as the correct procedure is followed.	Protects individuals from arbitrary laws, demanding that both the law and the procedures are fair, reasonable, and just.
Interpretation in Indian Context	Initially interpreted narrowly (A.K. Gopalan case, 1950) to mean only procedural adherence. Over time, the Indian judiciary has expanded its interpretation to include elements of substantive due process (Maneka Gandhi case, 1978).	Recognized within the framework of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution post-Maneka Gandhi case, where the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure must be "right, just, and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
Implications	May lead to the upholding of laws that are procedurally correct but may be inherently unjust or oppressive.	Ensures that laws must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness, providing greater protection to individual rights and liberties.

What is the Procedure Established by Law?

The procedure of law refers to the proper enactment of a law by the legislature or relevant body, which renders it valid. In this context, the court examines whether a law exists, if the legislature has the authority to create the law, and if the proper procedure was followed during the legislation without assessing the intent of the law itself. A significant drawback of this doctrine is that it fails to ensure that laws enacted by the parliament are fair, just, and not arbitrary. 

"Procedure established by law" also implies that a law, regardless of its divergence from principles of justice and equity, remains valid once properly enacted. As the focus is primarily on following the procedure during law establishment, there is a higher risk of compromising individuals' life and personal liberty due to unjust laws created by legislative authorities. Consequently, "Procedure established by law" safeguards individuals solely against the arbitrary actions of the executive.

Study the Schedules of the Indian Constitution here.

Due Process of Law Meaning

The doctrine of due process of law examines whether a law is in place to deprive someone of their life and personal liberty while ensuring that the law itself is fair, just, and not arbitrary. If the Supreme Court finds that any law fails this criterion, it usually declares it unconstitutional, which in turn guarantees that the individual rights will be honored.

Under the concept of "due process of law," it is required that all states respect the legal rights owed to individuals. The laws enacted by states must adhere to principles such as fairness, fundamental rights, and liberty. Due process of law grants individuals the freedom to access fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty provided by legislation. This doctrine protects individuals from the arbitrary actions of both the executive and the legislature.

Learn about Fundamental Rights here.

Important Supreme Court Judgments

The below mentioned are the examples of some important cases:

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India case (1978)

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India was a major Supreme Court of India case in which the Court considerably broadened the meaning of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that “personal liberty” should not be defined narrowly and rigorously but broadly and liberally.

ADM Jabalpur Vs. Shivkant Shukla

The ADM Jabalpur case is a seminal Supreme Court of India judgment on habeas corpus. During the Emergency of 1975 to 1977, P.N. Bhagwati issued a controversial ruling declaring that a person’s right not to be wrongfully held might be suspended.

AK Gopalan Vs. State of Madras

The Supreme Court of India issued a significant judgment in Gopalan Vs. The state of Madras ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution did not compel Indian courts to use a due process of law standard. This case was decided by a 5:1 majority of the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench of six judges.

Download the Key Takeaways PDF for the Difference between Procedure Established and Due Process of Law!

Testbook is one of the best e-learning platforms for those students who are preparing for different competitive exams, especially government exams. Testbook is always on the top of the list because of its best quality assured product like live tests, mocks, content pages,GK and current affairs videos and much more. So, to make your dream successful download the Testbook App now!