Procedure established by law, does not mean due process of law, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1980 SC 27.
In India as in UK, the legislature is free to lay down any procedure, within the ambit of its legislative power, all that is required to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty is to lay down a procedure by an intra vires enactment, A Commentary on the Constitution of India, Durga Das Basu, 6th Edn., Vol. D, p. 101.
In UK the law being State made or enacted and not the general principles of natural justice, procedure established by law means the procedure proscribed by the legislature, A Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. D , 6th Edn., p. 101.
Means procedure enacted by a law made by the State, that is to say, the Union Parliament or the legislatures of the State, Collector of Malabar v. Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee, AIR 1957 SC 688. (See Constitution of India, Art. 21)
Means the procedure prescribed by the law of the State. (Constitution of India, Art. 21)
The term 'Procedure established by law' means procedure established by law made by the State, that is to say, Union Parliament or the Legislatures of the States. It is not proper to construe this expression in the light of the meaning given to the expression 'due process of law' in the American Constitution, by the Supreme Court of America, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27: (1950) SCR 88.
(ii) The expression 'procedure established by law' in the context of deprivation of life and liberty under Article 21 was interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621: (1978) 1 SCC 248 and the interpretation so put has been treated as involving an enlargement of the right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. As limited to the procedure, the judges were agreed that the procedure must be reasonable and fair and not arbitrary or capricious. For, if the procedure was arbitrary, it would violate Article 14 since Article 14 is not consistent with any arbitrary power. In interpreting the expression 'procedure established by law' in Article 21 with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution, Bhagwati, J., observed: [(1978) 2 SCR 621 (674): (1978) 1 SCC 248 (283)] (SCC p. 283, para 7): 'We must reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348: (1974) 4 SCC 3: 1974 SCC (L&S) 165, namely, that 'from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14'. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14, Nand Lal Bajaj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 2041: (1981) 4 SCC 327: (1982) 1 SCR 718.
Means procedure enacted by a law made by the State, that is to say, the Union Parliament or the Legislatures of the States, Collector of Malabar v. Embrahim Hajee, AIR 1957 SC 688 (690): 1957 SCR 970; see also A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCR 88. (Constitution of India, Art. 21)