The concept of Due process was triggered by the abuse of power by government authorities. To ensure protection of the legal rights of the individuals from such arbitrariness "Due Process" acts as a shield and later it was impleaded as a fundamental in law. Due process is a cornerstone of a just and fair legal system.

It protects individual rights, ensures government accountability, promotes public trust in the legal system, and allows for the progressive development of legal standards. Due process is a critical mechanism in maintaining the checks and balances within a democratic system.

Introduction
The term 'Due Process' plays a crucial role in resisting a legal right of an individual. It is a legal mandate that the government must respect all the legal rights owed to a person according to the law of the land. The analysis of due process in India, the USA and the UK is significant as it establishes distinct legal traditions a common law in UK, a combination of common law and a written constitution in the USA and a blend of common law, statutory law and constitution law in India. Such an analyze enhances the understanding of how different legal system addresses fundamental rights, contributing to a more informed and comprehensive perspective on the rule of law.

Due Process Definition

Due process is an underlying legal principle that requires the government to respect and uphold all the legal rights that are owed to a person under the law. This principle is essential in ensuring that the government does not arbitrarily or unfairly deprive individuals of their rights, particularly concerning life, liberty, and property.

Historical Development Of Due Process

The first country to borrow the ' Due Process' is England. The original establishment of ' Due Process' began from Article 39 of Magna Carta (1215). The expression "due process of law" itself wasn't used in the Magna Carta, but the document laid the foundation for the idea by guaranteeing that no one could be penalized or deprived of their rights without a legal judgment by their peers or by the law of the land.

The conception of due process latterly told legal systems around the world, particularly in the United States, where it came an abecedarian indigenous principle. The due process was espoused in the Fifth correction of US Constitution in 1791 by the Federal Government. Latterly, following the Civil war, the State Government espoused "Due Process" by its Fourteenth Correction in the time 1868.

India espoused the conception of due process in its legal system through its Constitution, though the path to its relinquishment was nuanced and evolved over time. The Indian Constitution firstly included the conception of "procedure established by law" rather than "due process of law" in Article 21.

Constitutional & Legal Framework

United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom doesn't have a written constitution, therefore an Uncodified Constitution, which makes it unique among other popular nations. The whole constitution relies upon the Common Law, Statues and the Conventions. Judicial opinions and precedents act as a backbone in defining rights and procedures, including those related to ' due process'. Laws passed by the Parliament, similar as the Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of Rights (1689) and other recent laws passed form another crucial source of the UK's Constitution.

The Human Rights Act, 1998 was a corner piece of legislation that incorporated the rights outlined in the European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. This was a significant step in codifying certain rights and making them enforceable in UK courts. Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees the right to a fair trial, which is a core aspect of due process. It ensures that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hail within a reasonable time by an independent and unprejudiced bench.

USA:
The Due process is abecedarian element of the U.S. Constitution appearing in the Fifth and Fourteenth emendations. The Fifth Amendment is applied only to the Federal government, icing that any civil action that deprived a person of life, liberty, or property had to follow a fair legal process. Following the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was espoused in 1868. It extended the due process demand to the States.

This was a significant expansion, icing that state governments, like the Federal government, couldn't arbitrarily deprive individualizes of their fundamental rights. Over time, U.S. courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have interpreted and expanded the meaning of due process.

• Procedural Due Process: This ensures that the government follows fair procedures before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property. It requires notice, a fair hearing, and an impartial decisionmaker.
   
• Substantive Due Process: This doctrine protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if the procedures used are fair. The Supreme Court has used substantive due process to protect rights related to privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy, among others.

India:
According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person can be deprived of his life or liberty except by the procedure of law. This provision serves as fundamental safeguard of life and liberty, but the interpretation of "procedure established by law" has evolved significantly since the Constitution came into effect. When the Indian Constitution was espoused in 1950, Article 21 was interpreted hardly.

The expression "procedure established by law" was understood to mean any procedure specified by a validly legislated law of the State. The early interpretation was that as long as a law was properly passed by the Parliament or a state council, and the government followed the procedure set out in that law, it would be considered legal, indeed if the procedure was illegal or unjust.

Judicial Interpretation:

United Kingdom:

• ØR v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 (HL).
  The case involved two prisoners, John Simms and Raymond O'Brien, who were serving life sentences for murder. They argued that their convictions were wrongful and sought to give interviews to journalists to prove their innocence.
  
  The prison regulations at the time prohibited prisoners from giving oral interviews to journalists unless the journalist agreed not to use the information in the media. The prisoners challenged this regulation as a violation of their rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
  
  The House of Lords ruled in favor of the prisoners, holding that the regulation was unlawful as it disproportionately restricted their rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. The Court emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as a fundamental right, particularly in the context of allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions. It held that the government could only restrict this right if it was absolutely necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

USA:

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
  The ruling set a precedent that any statement made by a suspect during custodial interrogation is inadmissible in court unless the prosecution can show that the suspect was informed of and waived their rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The Miranda decision has had a profound impact on law enforcement in the United States, mandating the issuance of "Miranda warnings" before questioning suspects.
   
• Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
  A landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1963. The case established the right to legal counsel for all defendants in criminal cases, regardless of their ability to pay for an attorney. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony breaking and entering in a Florida state court in 1961. Gideon could not afford a lawyer and requested that the court appoint one for him. However, under Florida law at the time, counsel could only be appointed for defendants in capital cases, not for those charged with noncapital offenses. Gideon was forced to represent himself at trial.
  
  Despite his efforts, he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. From prison, Gideon filed a handwritten petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional because he had been denied the right to legal counsel. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, this right is applicable to the states. The ruling required that states provide an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers.

India:

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88
  A.K. Gopalan was a prominent communist leader in India who was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Gopalan challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
  
  He contended that his detention without trial was unconstitutional as it deprived him of his personal liberty without following a fair and just procedure. He also argued that the Preventive Detention Act itself was unconstitutional, as it violated his rights to freedom of movement (Article 19(1)(d)) and personal liberty (Article 21).
  
  The Court ruled that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 refers to a procedure that is validly enacted by the legislature. It does not require the procedure to be just, fair, or reasonable, as long as it follows the law. The decision reflected a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing on the literal meaning of "procedure established by law" and rejecting the incorporation of substantive due process.
   
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, AIR 1978 SC 597
  The landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) marked a turning point in the interpretation of Article 21. The petitioner, Maneka Gandhi, had her passport impounded by the government without being given an opportunity to be heard. She challenged this action as a violation of her right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 by ruling that the "procedure established by law" must be "fair, just, and reasonable."

The Court held that any law depriving a person of life or personal liberty must satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, thus incorporating elements of due process into Indian law. The Court also emphasized that Article 21 should be read in conjunction with Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), making it clear that laws affecting personal liberty must pass the test of reasonableness under these provisions as well.

Conclusion
Due Process acts as a mechanism to gain individual trust over judiciary. It acts as a shelter to the individuals who are exploited by the arbitrary acts of the government authorities. Due Process protects individuals from unjust, unfair and arbitrary acts of the government.

Due process plays a crucial role in many countries it protects minorities and empowers the marginalized communities. It promotes fairness and justice and helps in progressive development of the country. It is a vital mechanism ensuring check and balances in a Democratic country.