RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

The phrase due process embodies society's basic notions of legal fairness. A first
reading of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which
prohibit government from taking a person's "life, liberty or property without due
process of law," suggests a limitation that only relates to procedures. In fact many
due process cases do involve the question of fair procedures or procedural due
process. However, question of legal fairness may be related not only to procedures,
but also to legislation that unfairly affects people. As a result, courts in the U.S. have
interpreted the language of these Amendments as a limitation on substantive powers
of legislatures to pass laws affecting various aspects of life. When applying what is
called substantive due process, courts look at whether a law or government action
unreasonably infringes on a fundamental liberty.
In a case from 1833, the Supreme Court of the U.S. decided that the Fifth
Amendment was not directly binding on state governments. As a result of that case,
neither the Supreme Court nor the federal court in general exercised much control
over the substance of state laws or over the processes by which states administered
their laws during America's early years. This situation changed dramatically with
the passage of the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, and 15), which were designed to
prevent discrimination by states against blacks freed from slavery as a result of that
war.
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause was almost identical to the Fifth
Amendment's clause. But the Fourteenth Amendment was specific in limiting the
actions of the state governments. Courts have interpreted these two clauses
identically: the Fifth Amendment now limits the power of the federal government
and the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of state (and local) governments.
Procedural Due Process
Many of the modern due process cases deal with what is called procedural due
process (fair process, procedures). Due process procedures do not guarantee that the
result of government action will be to a citizen's liking. However, fair procedures do
help prevent arbitrary, unreasonable decisions. Due process requirements vary
depending on the situation. At a minimum, due process means that a citizen who will
be affected by a government decision must be given notice of what government
plans to do and have a chance to comment on the action.
Government takes many actions that may deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
In each case, some form of due process is required. For example, a state might fire
someone from a government job, send defendant to prison, revoke a prisoner's
parole, or cut someone's social security payments or other welfare benefits. Due
process does not prohibit these actions, but it does require that certain procedures
be followed before any action is taken.
If a person has a right to due process, the next question is this: What process is due?
Due process is a flexible concept. The procedures required in specific situations
depend on several factors: seriousness of the harm that might be done to the citizen;
the risk of making an error without the procedures; and the cost to the government,
in time and money, in carrying out the procedures. According to past decisions of
the Supreme Court, the primary reason for establishing procedural safeguards -
once a life, liberty, or property interest is affected by government action - is to
prevent inaccurate or unjustified decisions.
In addition to notice and an opportunity to be heard, due process may include a
hearing before an impartial person, representation by an attorney, calling witnesses
on one's behalf, cross-examination of witnesses, a written decision with reasons
based on evidence introduced, a transcript of the proceeding, and an opportunity to
appeal the decision.
If you believe that the government has not followed proper procedures, the best
thing to do is to first consult an attorney. With the attorney's advice and assistance,
you can file a complaint directly with the government agency. You may also be able
to go to court and seek an order that the government follow due process in dealing
with you.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process refers to the Supreme Court's examination of the reasons
why the government passed a law or otherwise acted in a manner denying a citizen
or a group of citizens life, liberty, or property (regardless of the procedure the law
provides). In some cases, such as when a law infringes upon a citizen's First
Amendment rights, right to privacy, right to vote, or makes a racial or sexual
classification, the Supreme Court requires the government to have an extremely
important or "compelling" reason for the law. The Court will "strictly scrutinize"
the government's reasons and, in all likelihood, will strike the law down. In other
cases, such as when the government enacts taxation or zoning laws, the personal
rights involved are not as fundamental, and the Court will uphold the law as long as
the government's motives are not arbitrary or irrational.

Article 10: Free expression

Article 10 in action
We have the right to express ourselves freely and hold our own opinions
– even if our views are unpopular or could upset or offend others.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects a right that’s fundamental to our democracy
– our freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy.
It means we’re free to hold opinions and ideas and to share them with others without the
State interfering.
Liberty and other human rights groups have used Article 10 to challenge the UK
Government’s mass surveillance – which scoops up all our correspondence, putting our
rights to privacy, free expression and protest and our free press in jeopardy.
Article 10 also protects your right to communicate and express yourself in any medium –
including through words, pictures and actions. It’s often used to defend press freedom
and protect journalists’ sources.
This right covers:
 ·0 Political expression – including peaceful protests and demonstrations
·1 Artistic expression
·2 Commercial expression – particularly when it also raises matters of legitimate
public debate and concern.
The right to free expression would be meaningless if it only protected certain types of
expression. So Article 10 protects both popular and unpopular expression – including
speech that might shock others – subject to certain limitations.
Limitations
Article 10 may be limited in certain circumstances. Any limitation must:
·3 be covered by law
·4 be necessary and proportionate
·5 be for one or more of the following aims:
·6 national security, territorial integrity or public safety
·7 preventing disorder or crime
·8 protecting health
·9 protecting other people's reputation or rights
·10 preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
·11 maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
When considering whether free expression should be limited, courts will question
whether doing so could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, the value of the particular
form of expression and the medium used.
Limiting free expression usually involves restrictions on publication, penalties for
publication, requiring journalists to reveal their sources, imposing disciplinary measures
or confiscating material.

h 1

Article: 10 Safeguards as to arrest and detention

10. Safeguards as to arrest and detention.-(1) No person who is arrested shall be
detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such
arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner
of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before a
Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest, excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the nearest Magistrate,
and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the
authority of a Magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply to any person who is arrested or detained
under any law providing for preventive detention.
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall be made except to deal with persons
acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part
thereof, or external affairs of Pakistan, or public order, or the maintenance of supplies or
services, and no such law shall authorise the detention of a person for a period exceeding
1[three months] unless the appropriate Review Board has, after affording him an
opportunity of being heard in person, reviewed his case and reported, before the
expiration of the said period, that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for such
detention, and, if the detention is continued after the said period of 1[three months],
unless the appropriate Review Board has reviewed his case and reported, before the
expiration of each period of three months, that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for
such detention.