Editorial Analysis 18 May
Daily Editorial Analysis
Editorial Analysis based on “SC verdict on Newsclick shows adherence to due process is much more than a procedural requirement ” which was published in The Indian Express.
Introduction:
- Last year, the Delhi Police's Special Cell arrested Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, accusing him of trying to undermine India's sovereignty through his news platform, allegedly funded by China.
- The Supreme Court ordered Purkayastha's release from custody, stating that his arrest and detention under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) by the Delhi Police were not valid under the law.
- The Supreme Court's recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice B R Gavai, underscores the significance of due process in legal proceedings.
- SC ruled that Due process is not merely a procedural requirement but a fundamental right crucial for assessing the maturity of a civilization.
Details:
- Purkayastha was not informed of the “grounds of arrest” as required by the Constitution’s Article 22 before his production before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).
Article 22 states that:
- A person who is arrested must be told why they were arrested as soon as possible
- A person who is arrested cannot be denied the right to consult a lawyer of their choice
- A person who is arrested and detained must be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest
- A person cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without authority.
SC rulings:
- The judgment differentiated between the "reasons of arrest," which are formal and common to all arrested individuals, and the "grounds of arrest," which must be specific to each individual.
- Failure to communicate the "grounds of arrest" in writing violates the right to life and personal liberty, rendering the arrest and subsequent detention illegal, regardless of remand orders.
|
Historical Context of due process of law |
●The concept of due process has evolved, from early procedural rights in documents like the Magna Carta, to the formal introduction of "due process" in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution. ●Despite its historical importance, due process is not merely procedural; it encompasses principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. |
|
Evolution in India |
●The Constituent Assembly initially included a due process clause in the draft Constitution, but it was ultimately replaced with the narrower "procedure established by law." Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no one can be deprived of their life or personal liberty without following the procedure established by law. The phrase "procedure established by law" means: ●A procedure that is prescribed by law ●A procedure that is laid down by statute ●A law that provides the procedure for taking away an individual's life or personal liberty. |
|
Judicial Interpretation |
●The evolution of due process of law in India began with the 1978 Supreme Court case Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India. ●In this case, the court ruled that the procedure established by law to deprive a person of their life or personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. ●The court also stated that the procedure must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. |
Contemporary Challenges:
- Despite judicial recognition of due process, India continues to grapple with issues such as preventive detention laws, which have the potential for abuse.
- Stringent preventive detention laws persist at both the central and state levels, leading to high numbers of undertrial prisoners and concerns about procedural fairness.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court's recent judgment reaffirms the importance of due process as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of state power.
- While India has made significant moves in recognizing due process, ongoing challenges underscore the need for continued vigilance and reform to uphold principles of fairness and justice.
Read about the preventive detention in India here:
1.png)
