{"id":31509,"date":"2026-10-30T17:01:22","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T11:31:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/?p=31509"},"modified":"2026-10-30T17:01:22","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T11:31:22","slug":"procedure-established-by-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/procedure-established-by-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Procedure Established by Law, Meaning, Origin, Case Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law is the constitutional principle enshrined in Article 21, which states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Unlike the American concept of \u201cdue process of law\", the phrase was adopted by the Constituent Assembly to give greater weight to legislative authority and limit excessive judicial scrutiny of a law\u2019s fairness.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted Procedure Established by Law narrowly in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), requiring compliance with a legally enacted procedure. However, subsequent judgements, particularly R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi, broadened its scope by requiring procedures to be fair, just and reasonable. Consequently, Procedure Established by Law now incorporates substantial due-process safeguards under Article 21.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law Meaning<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law means that a person can be deprived of life or personal liberty only when such deprivation is authorised by a valid law enacted by a competent legislature and the procedure prescribed by that law is followed.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Constitutional Basis:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The expression is explicitly contained in <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/article-21\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"><strong>Article 21<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Literal Meaning:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Originally, it meant that if the legislature had enacted a law prescribing a procedure, deprivation of life or personal liberty would be valid if that procedure was followed.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Law as <\/b><b><i>Lex<\/i><\/b><b>:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The original interpretation focused on <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">lex<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> - law formally enacted by the State \u2013 rather than <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">jus<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, which represents broader principles of justice, fairness and natural law.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Initial Judicial Approach:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Under A.K. Gopalan (1950), courts were primarily concerned with whether a validly enacted law existed and whether the prescribed procedure had been followed.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Limited Judicial Review:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The original approach did not permit courts to examine whether the substance of a validly enacted law was itself fair or reasonable.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Present Position:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> After the <\/span><b>Maneka Gandhi Case (1978)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the procedure must not merely be legally established; it must also satisfy the requirements of fairness, justice and reasonableness.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law Origin\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The phrase \u201cprocedure established by law\u201d was deliberately adopted instead of the American expression \u201cdue process of law\u201d during the framing of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>British Influence:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The concept was influenced by the British constitutional tradition, which placed greater emphasis on <\/span><b>legislative supremacy<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> and parliamentary law-making.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>B.N. Rau and Felix Frankfurter:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Constituent Assembly Advisor B.N. Rau consulted US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who expressed concerns about the American due-process doctrine.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Fear of Judicial Supremacy:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Frankfurter believed that due process could allow a small number of unelected judges to invalidate laws enacted by elected legislatures.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Drafting Committee's Decision:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Following this advice, \u201cdue process of law\u201d was replaced by \u201cprocedure established by law\u201d in Article 21.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Dr Ambedkar's Concern:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Dr B.R. Ambedkar recognised that this approach could give the legislature considerable freedom in prescribing procedures affecting personal liberty.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Article 22 as Safeguard:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> To provide specific protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, the Constitution incorporated safeguards under <\/span><b>Article 22<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law Case Laws\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The meaning of Article 21 has evolved significantly - from a narrow legislative-procedure requirement to a broader constitutional guarantee of fairness.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Supreme Court initially gave \u201cprocedure established by law\u201d a narrow and literal interpretation.<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Court considered the omission of the word \u201cdue\u201d significant, indicating that the Constitution did not intend to give courts the power to examine the reasonableness of a law under Article 21.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Article 21 was treated as a self-contained provision, separate from <\/span><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/article-19\/\" target=\"_blank\">Article 19<\/a><\/strong><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Court essentially examined whether a valid law existed and whether the executive had followed the procedure prescribed by that law.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Thus, Article 21 was initially viewed primarily as a check on executive action, rather than a substantive check on legislative power.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The Court struck down domiciliary visits at night because they were not supported by a valid law.<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, the judgement largely continued the Gopalan approach, focusing on the existence of legal authority rather than undertaking a broad substantive fairness review.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970): <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Bank Nationalisation case rejected the idea that fundamental rights operate as isolated and mutually exclusive compartments.<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Court held that State action could be examined simultaneously under Articles 14, 19 and 21.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">This decision laid the foundation for a broader interpretation of Article 21 and paved the way for substantive fairness review.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Court fundamentally transformed the meaning of Article 21.<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">It held that the procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Articles 14, 19 and 21 were held to be interconnected, creating what is commonly called the \u201cGolden Triangle\u201d of fundamental rights.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The judgement effectively introduced due-process principles into Article 21 without changing the constitutional text.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, particularly under Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The judgement reinforced the requirement that State interference with protected liberty must satisfy constitutional standards of legality and justification.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">It also affirmed the importance of substantive due-process principles in Indian constitutional law.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Due Process of Law vs Procedure Established by Law<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The difference between the Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law lies in the scope of judicial review. While due process examines the fairness of both law and procedure, Article 21\u2019s procedure established by law has evolved to include fair, just and reasonable procedures.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<table style=\"width: 92.284%\">\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td class=\"tb-color\" style=\"width: 17.0341%\"><b>Parameter<\/b><\/td>\r\n<td class=\"tb-color\" style=\"width: 35.1195%\"><b>Due Process of Law<\/b><\/td>\r\n<td class=\"tb-color\" style=\"width: 39.2292%\"><b>Procedure Established by Law<\/b><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Constitutional Basis<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Not expressly mentioned in the Indian Constitution<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Expressly provided under Article 21<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Origin<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><b>U.S. Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> - 5th and 14th Amendments<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Influenced by the British constitutional tradition<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Scope<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Wider; examines both the law and the procedure<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Originally narrower, focused on whether the procedure prescribed by law was followed<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Substantive Review<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Courts can examine whether the law itself is fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Originally, courts could not examine the reasonableness of a validly enacted law.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Procedural Review<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Requires the procedure to be fair and reasonable<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Requires compliance with the procedure prescribed by law<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Original Indian Position<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Not adopted by the Constituent Assembly<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Deliberately adopted in Article 21<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Key Judicial Development<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Developed as a broader constitutional principle in the U.S.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">A.K. Gopalan (1950) \u2192 R.C. Cooper (1970) \u2192 Maneka Gandhi (1978) \u2192 Puttaswamy (2017)<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Present Indian Position<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Not formally recognised as a separate doctrine but judicially adopted<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now incorporates substantial due-process principles through judicial interpretation<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 17.0341%\">\r\n<p><b>Primary Objective<\/b><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 35.1195%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Protects individuals against unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary State action<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 39.2292%\">\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Ensures that deprivation of life or personal liberty is based on law and a fair procedure<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law and Challenges in India<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Although judicial interpretation of Article 21 has strengthened the protection of life and personal liberty, several implementation challenges remain for Procedure Established by Law in India.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Arbitrary Exercise of State Power:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Broad statutory powers and excessive discretion can lead to arbitrary arrests, detention and restrictions on personal liberty, undermining constitutional safeguards.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Judicial Delays and Prolonged Undertrial Detention:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Delays in criminal proceedings can result in individuals remaining incarcerated for extended periods without conviction, violating the principle of a speedy trial recognised under Article 21.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Unequal Access to Justice:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Financial constraints, inadequate legal representation and limited legal awareness prevent disadvantaged individuals from effectively challenging unlawful detention or unfair procedures.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Custodial Violence and Human Rights Violations:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Police brutality, custodial deaths and inhuman prison conditions demonstrate the gap between constitutional guarantees and their implementation.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Inadequate Procedural Safeguards:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Failure to follow safeguards relating to arrest, detention, legal representation and judicial oversight can undermine the fairness required under Article 21.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Balancing Individual Liberty and National Security:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Preventive detention and special security laws may create tensions between public safety and personal liberty, making effective judicial scrutiny essential.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Limited Awareness of Constitutional Rights:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Many individuals, particularly from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds, remain unaware of their rights to legal assistance, bail and remedies against unlawful detention.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Inconsistent Application of Fairness Standards:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Determining whether a procedure is fair, just and reasonable can involve complex judicial assessments, creating challenges in ensuring consistent protection across cases.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Procedure Established by Law Way Forward<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">To bridge the gap between constitutional guarantees and their practical implementation, India needs a rights-based approach that strengthens judicial accountability, ensures procedural fairness, and promotes access to justice. The way forward for the Procedure Established by Law should focus on the following measures.<\/span><\/p>\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Strengthen Judicial Review:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Courts should rigorously examine whether laws and procedures affecting personal liberty comply with Articles 14 and 21, including the requirements of legality, fairness, proportionality and non-arbitrariness.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Ensure Time-Bound Trials:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Strengthen judicial capacity, fill judicial vacancies, improve investigation and prosecution processes, and use technology responsibly to reduce delays and prolonged undertrial detention.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Expand Access to Legal Aid:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Improve the quality and accessibility of free legal services through the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), State Legal Services Authorities and district-level legal aid institutions. National Legal Services Authority<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Strengthen Arrest and Detention Safeguards:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Ensure compliance with constitutional protections, access to legal counsel, timely production before a magistrate and effective judicial supervision.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Improve Police Accountability:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Strengthen independent investigations into custodial violence, enforce accountability for rights violations and improve human-rights training for police and prison personnel.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Promote Proportionate State Action:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Restrictions on personal liberty should pursue legitimate objectives and satisfy applicable constitutional standards, with less restrictive alternatives considered wherever appropriate.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Improve Legal Awareness:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Expand legal literacy programmes, prison legal aid clinics and community-level awareness initiatives so that vulnerable individuals can exercise their constitutional rights effectively.<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Strengthen Prison Reforms:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Improve prison conditions, access to legal representation, medical care and periodic reviews of undertrial detention to prevent unnecessary deprivation of liberty. National Digital Library of India<\/span><\/li>\r\n\t<li style=\"font-weight: 400\"><b>Develop Rights - Sensitive Legislation:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Legislatures should incorporate clear procedural safeguards, accountability mechanisms and effective remedies into laws that affect life and personal liberty.<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Procedure established by law means that a person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty only by procedures laid down by a validly enacted statute. Read about its meaning, origin and case laws.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":31546,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,27],"tags":[2173,40,632],"class_list":["post-31509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-notes","category-upsc-polity-notes","tag-procedure-established-by-law","tag-quest","tag-upsc-polity-notes"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31509"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31543,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31509\/revisions\/31543"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31546"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}