Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law

One fundamental principle underpinning this protection is the concept of due process of law. While the traditional understanding of “procedure established by law” ensures that laws are duly enacted, it does not guarantee fairness, justice and the absence of arbitrariness. 

In contrast, the doctrine of due process of law goes beyond mere legality, encompassing the essential elements of fairness, equity and respect for fundamental rights. 

What is Procedure Established by Law?

The concept of “procedure established by law” holds that laws enacted by the legislative authorities are valid, regardless of their fairness or justice. In essence, as long as the law has followed the prescribed legal procedures, it is deemed valid, even if it contradicts principles of equity and justice. 

This narrow interpretation raises concerns regarding the compromise of individual rights and personal liberties. When laws can be made without regard for their impact on the fundamental rights of citizens, the risk of unjust and arbitrary legislation looms large.

What is Due Process of Law?

Due process of law, on the other hand, establishes a broader standard for evaluating the validity of laws. It not only requires a legal framework to deprive individuals of life and personal liberty but also demands that the law be fair, just and free from arbitrariness. 

This doctrine obligates the state to respect the legal rights owed to every person and ensures that laws enacted conform to the principles of fairness, fundamental rights and liberty.

Difference Between Procedure Established by Law and Due Process of Law

Suppose a law enacted by the Parliament allows the government to detain individuals without trial indefinitely if they are suspected of posing a threat to national security. Under the “Procedure Established by Law” concept, as long as the law was duly enacted through the prescribed legislative procedures, it would be considered valid, regardless of its fairness or justice.

However, under the doctrine of “Due Process of Law,” the validity of such a law would be subject to evaluation beyond mere legality. The judiciary would assess whether the law is fair, just and not arbitrary, considering its impact on fundamental rights and individual liberties. In this case, the court may examine if the law strikes a reasonable balance between protecting national security interests and safeguarding the rights to liberty and due process for the individuals affected.

If the court determines that the law infringes upon fundamental rights without sufficient justification or is arbitrary, it may declare it unconstitutional and strike it down. The principle of due process requires that the state respects the legal rights owed to individuals and ensures that laws conform to the principles of fairness, justice and liberty.