Search results
K. Rajah Aiyar, Advocate-General of Madras (C. R. Pattabi Raman and R. Ganapathi, with him) lot the State of Madras. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Jindralal, with him) for the Union of India.
- Housing Act
The National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 OF 1987) 18. /800...
- The Parliament
Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal...
- Housing Act
- Introduction
- Background of The Case
- Facts of The Case A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras
- Issues Raised in The Case of A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras
- Judgement of A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras
- Conclusion
- GeneratedCaptionsTabForHeroSec
A.K Gopalan vs the State of Madras is one of the landmark judgements of the Indian Constitution. This case mainly focuses upon the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 19, 21, and 22. In the case of A.K Gopalan vs the State of Madras, the Supreme Court denied recognising the deficiencies of procedure established by l...
A.K Gopalan was a communist leader who was mainly active in Madras Presidency (now called Kerala). He was detained in the jail of Madras, and whenever he came out of the prison, a new detention order was issued against him, and he had to go to jail again. After several years of detention, he challenged his preventive detention. A.K Gopalan argued t...
A.K. Gopalan was the political opponent of the government. Since December 1947, he was illegally detained several times and even after the court led him free, he was still kept under detention by the government. In 1950, he was again detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Then, A.K Gopalan filed a writ petition under Article 32of the In...
The following issues were raised in the case of A.K Gopalan vs the State of Madras: 1. Whether the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 violates Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution? 2. Whether Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are dependent on each other, is there any relation between the Articles? 3. Whether the ‘procedure establi...
The judgment of this case was given by 6 judges constitutional bench of the Supreme Court with the ratio of 5:1 majority. Justice Fazl Ali gave the dissenting opinion. The court rejected the arguments given by A.K. Gopalan and said that personal liberty means freedom of the physical body only and nothing beyond it. In this way, the court restricted...
In the A.K. Gopalan case, the court restricted the meaning of Article 21 to the extent that personal liberty only means freedom of personal body and nothing else. The court even restricted the scope of Article 19 and held that the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, is constitutional and does not violate any fundamental right. Moreover, justice Fazl Al...
Learn about the landmark case that challenged the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and its impact on fundamental rights. Find out the facts, issues, judgement and dissent of the Supreme Court in this case.
- Anushka Saxena
A landmark case of the Supreme Court of India in 1950 that ruled on the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require due process of law and upheld the Act with some exceptions.
Jun 17, 2024 · A landmark case on preventive detention and fundamental rights in India. The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted Article 19 and Article 21, which were later overturned by the Supreme Court itself.
- Rachit Garg
Feb 7, 2022 · A summary of the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, which interpreted the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. The case held that the State can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a person based on a law, and that the expression ‘procedure established by law’ is different from ‘due process of law’.
May 9, 2022 · Learn about the landmark case that challenged the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Find out the facts, legal issues, contention, decision and relevance of the case in constitutional law.
May 27, 2020 · A landmark constitutional law case that challenged the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The majority opinion held that the act did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioner, while the dissent argued for a harmonious interpretation of the articles.
