### **Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process of Law**  

These are two key legal doctrines that determine the constitutional validity of laws and government actions, particularly concerning **Fundamental Rights** in India.

---

### **1. Procedure Established by Law (PETL)**
- **Definition:** It means that a law is **valid** if it has been enacted following the prescribed legislative procedure, even if it violates fundamental rights.
- **Origin:** Derived from **British legal system**.
- **Focus:** On whether the law has been **properly enacted**.
- **Application in India:** **Article 21** (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).
- **Example:** If Parliament passes a law that curtails personal liberty, courts will only check whether the **procedure** followed in making the law was correct, not whether the law is just or fair.

🔹 **Criticism:**  
- Can lead to **arbitrary laws** that violate fundamental rights.
- No check on **fairness, justice, or reasonableness** of laws.

---

### **2. Due Process of Law (DPL)**
- **Definition:** This doctrine checks **both the law and its fairness, reasonableness, and justness**.  
- **Origin:** Derived from the **American legal system** (U.S. Constitution’s 5th and 14th Amendments).
- **Focus:** Courts can **strike down** laws that violate **fundamental rights** or **natural justice**.
- **Application in India:** Though not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted **Article 21** to include aspects of Due Process.
- **Example:** If a law violates the **principles of justice**, even if passed by Parliament, the Supreme Court can declare it **unconstitutional**.

🔹 **Advantage:**  
- Protects citizens from **arbitrary government actions**.
- Ensures **fairness and justice** in both the **law** and its **implementation**.

---

### **Comparison Table**
| Feature | Procedure Established by Law | Due Process of Law |
|---------|-----------------------------|--------------------|
| **Origin** | British legal system | U.S. legal system |
| **Focus** | Whether a law follows correct legislative procedure | Whether the law is fair, just, and reasonable |
| **Judicial Review** | Limited to procedural aspects | Includes substance and fairness of law |
| **Risk** | Arbitrary laws can be valid | Greater protection against unfair laws |
| **Application in India** | Initially followed, but gradually expanded | Interpreted into Article 21 by the Supreme Court |

---

### **Landmark Supreme Court Cases in India**
1. **A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)**  
   - **Held:** Followed **Procedure Established by Law**, meaning that as long as a law was properly enacted, courts couldn't question its fairness.  
   - **Impact:** Allowed arbitrary detentions as long as the procedure was followed.

2. **Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)**  
   - **Held:** **Expanded Article 21** to include **Due Process of Law**.  
   - **Impact:** Courts can now check **not just procedure, but also the fairness and reasonableness** of laws affecting life and liberty.

3. **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)**  
   - **Held:** Established **Basic Structure Doctrine** and strengthened judicial review.  
   - **Impact:** Parliament cannot pass laws that violate **fundamental rights**.

---

### **Conclusion**
- Initially, India **strictly followed** "Procedure Established by Law" (A.K. Gopalan case).
- **After Maneka Gandhi’s case (1978)**, the **Supreme Court expanded Article 21** to incorporate elements of **Due Process of Law**.
- **Presently**, courts have the power to **strike down** arbitrary and unjust laws, protecting citizens' rights more effectively.

---