Test of Direct and inevitable effect| Constitutional Law

We all know that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is the guardian of our Constitution and protector of our Fundamental Rights. 

Under Art.32 of the Indian Constitution, we can approach the Supreme Court of India to uphold our fundamental rights and if there is any infringement of such rights, we can enforce it through orders, directives or writs. 

The test of Direct and Inevitable effect and Evolution of this doctrine:

In the landmark case of A.K Gopalan V Union of India, the detention of the applicant was challenged under the grounds that it infringes Art.19(1) of the Constitution. The court observed the right approach is to look into the directness of the legislation and not what will be the consequences of the detention. The same was observed in Ram Singh and others V State of Delhi. 

It was in the case of Express Newspaper Pvt Ltd V Union of India, N. H. Bhagawati. J, formulated the doctrine of “direct and inevitable effect” which is also known as “intended or real effect”. 

So what is this doctrine? 

It was in the case of R. C Cooper V Union of India, where the Supreme Court, overruled A.K. Gopalan case’s observation. It was in this judgment that the object of state action and form alone determine the extent of  protection that may be claimed by an individual and the effect of the state action on the fundamental right is irrelevant was finally rejected. The court observed that the effect of State action which directly affects the Fundamental Right must be taken rather than the object or form of the legislation. 

For ex: If you are detained for some preventive measure where the State passes an order of such detention and it infringes your Fundamental Right under Art.19 of the Constitution, then the court uses this test not to see the validity of detention. If the Court finds that there is direct and inevitable consequences which will affect any of your fundamental rights, then such order can be treated violative. 

Initially  only the directness or indirectness was looked upon to apply the test but the Court observed that we need to quantify it. Merely stating whether it is direct or indirect, gives the Court an unfettered discretion. So the word “inevitable” was used. When a State action has a direct and inevitable effect, only then such actions are considered violative. Inevitable in general sense itself means- “ which cannot be avoided or prevented from happening.” That is, it’ll be presumed by the Court that the State intended to do so. 

In the case of Maneka Gandhi V Union of India, the petitioner contented that impounding the Passport was infringing her freedom of speech and expression. If we have understood this doctrine, and apply it,  we can say that this is not violative. The Court observed the same. Impounding of the passport did not have any direct and inevitable effect on that Fundamental Right. 

This test is very important to keep in mind when interpreting a case where there is State action involved. For Rule of Law to prevail, the Supreme Court must have a check on the arbitrary state actions. The mischief or misuse of authority can be curtailed by this test and such a doctrine with its evolution has strengthened the upholding of Fundamental Rights of the citizens. 

These were keenly observed in one of the landmark cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Menaka Gandhi V Union of India.