The drafting history of article 21 is as follows:
Draft Article 15 was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 6 and 13 December 1948. It provided for the right to life and personal liberty, subject to procedure established by law; it also gave all persons equality before the law.
Members were divided on whether the term ‘procedure established by law’ should be replaced with ‘due process’, and the implications of such a move. Some argued that ‘procedure established by law’ would allow the legislature to pass laws which violated an individual’s civil liberties. If the term ‘due process’ was adopted instead, the judiciary would have the right to protect these liberties by investigating whether a law was consistent with the other fundamental rights. However, others argued that ‘due process’ allowed the unelected judges, who themselves are not immune from prejudice, to undermine the authority of the legislature by passing judgment on lawfully-enacted legislation. Ultimately, the members chose to retain the phrase ‘procedure established by law’.
The second part of the Draft Article, relating to equality before the law, was not debated. Later, the Drafting Committee decided to move this part into a standalone Article 14.
Draft Article 15 was passed without amendments on 13 December 1948.
However the Maneka Gandhi case broadened the scope of this.
Why is that? Despite the clear drafting intent behind the article to exclude due process why did this get broadened? The court has taken a purposive approach to Article 20 by stating that the drafters didn't intend Article 20 to include "unreasonable" search warrants. So why did article 21 get broadened?