Distinction between "due process of law" and "procedures established by law"

The distinction between "due process of law" and "procedures established by law" lies in their scope, implications, and the level of protection they offer. Here's a clear breakdown:

Due Process of Law

- **Origin**: Rooted in the English Magna Carta and prominently enshrined in the U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments), as well as in other legal systems influenced by common law.

- **Meaning**: It refers to a broader, more substantive concept that ensures fairness, justice, and protection of fundamental rights in legal proceedings. It’s not just about following a set procedure but ensuring that the process itself is just, reasonable, and respects individual liberties.

- **Scope**: 

  - **Procedural Due Process**: Ensures fair procedures (e.g., notice, hearing, impartial tribunal) before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.

  - **Substantive Due Process**: Goes beyond procedure to evaluate whether the law itself is fair, rational, and not arbitrary (e.g., protecting rights like privacy or equality).

- **Example**: In the U.S., a law might technically exist, but if it violates fundamental rights (like banning free speech without justification), it could be struck down as violating due process.

- **Flexibility**: Courts often interpret it dynamically, adapting to evolving notions of justice.

Procedures Established by Law

- **Origin**: A narrower concept, often associated with legal systems like India’s Constitution (Article 21), where it was deliberately chosen over "due process" to limit judicial overreach.

- **Meaning**: It simply means that any action (e.g., deprivation of rights) must follow the legal procedure laid out in a statute or regulation. It focuses on compliance with existing laws, regardless of whether those laws are inherently fair or just.

- **Scope**: 

  - Limited to ensuring that the steps prescribed by a validly enacted law are followed.

  - Does not inherently question the fairness or morality of the law itself—only its procedural adherence.

- **Example**: If a law states that a person can be arrested without a hearing, and the arrest follows that law, it satisfies "procedures established by law"—even if it’s unfair.

- **Rigidity**: It’s more mechanical and doesn’t invite deeper scrutiny of the law’s content.

### Key Differences

1. **Depth of Protection**:

   - Due process safeguards both the "how" (procedure) and the "what" (substance) of the law.

   - Procedures established by law only care about the "how"—compliance with enacted rules.

2. **Judicial Role**:

   - Due process allows courts to strike down unjust laws (substantive review).

   - Procedures established by law limit courts to checking procedural compliance, not the law’s fairness.

3. **Philosophy**:

   - Due process reflects a natural justice approach, prioritizing individual rights.

   - Procedures established by law leans toward legal positivism, emphasizing statutory authority.

 Practical Illustration

Imagine a government wants to seize property:

- Under **due process**, a court might ask: Is there a fair hearing? Is the law itself reasonable?

- Under **procedures established by law**, the question is simpler: Did the government follow the steps in the property seizure statute?

In short, "due process of law" is a more robust, rights-oriented standard, while "procedures established by law" is a narrower, compliance-focused one. The former protects against tyranny; the latter assumes the law’s legitimacy unless changed legislatively.