Author:- Shreya Srivastava, a student at University of Allahabad
1. INTRODUCTION
28th of April, 1976, is remembered as one of the worst days in the history of the Supreme Court of India. On this date, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled in the matter of ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (popularly known as habeas corpus case) that High Court cannot uphold a person’s right to life under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution during National Emergency.
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain2, the petitioner challenged Indira Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha in which she was find guilty and her election held null and void, meaning she could not run for office again for the next six years. She approached to the Supreme Court, which only granted her a conditional stay. On June 26, 1975, she requested that then-President Fakruddin Ali Ahmad declare an emergency under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. Government states, “a grave emergency existed in which the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances.” The administration cited the 1971 war with Pakistan and the 1972 drought as reasons for declaring an emergency.
3. FACTS:
On June 27, 1975, Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution was enforced on the people of India and foreigners, within the right to approach the court to enforce Article 14 (Right to equality), Article 21 (Right to life), and Article 22 (Prevention against detention in certain cases) and all proceedings that were pending related to the above-mentioned Article will remain suspended during the Emergency. Under Prevention Detention Laws, anyone considered a political threat to the state or who could freely express his/her political opinion was detained without trial.
This resulted in the imprisonment of numerous opposition figures, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Morarji Desai, Jay Prakash Narayan, under the MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act), because all these leaders posed a political threat to Indira Gandhi.
These people moves various High Courts across the country, disputing the terms of Article 359 and arguing that their rights under Articles 21 and 22 were being violated. At least nine High Courts ruled that the writ of Habeas Corpus was maintainable even during an emergency. Concerned about these High Courts, the Government approached the Supreme Court.
4. ISSUES:
The key question was whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained before the court, once an Emergency was declared and Articles 14, 21, and 22 were suspended and if relief could be given to a person?
PETITIONER’S ARGUEMENT
The emergency laws that are in effect during an emergency allow the executive to have total control over state activities since, in an emergency, state interests take precedence over all others.
The second contention was that the state shall not release the detenue even if the advisory board is of the opinion that there lies no sufficient reason to detain. The detention is maintained under pursuance of violation of Art. 22. The writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be enforced even after considering Art. 22 to be a fundamental right itself. The right to move a court for enforcement of a right under article 19 has now been suspended by the President under article 359(1).
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
According to respondent, Article 359(1)’s primary goal was to prevent petitioning the Supreme Court under Article 32 to enforce specific rights. The Presidential Orders were only legitimate in terms of fundamental rights and did not apply to Natural Law, Common Law, or Statutory Law and has nothing to do Art. 226.
The Presidential order has no effect on non-fundamental constitutional rights such as those originating under Articles 256, 265, and 361(3), natural rights, contractual rights, or statutory rights to personal liberty. Statutory rights can only be revoked in accordance with the statute, not by executive order.
5. JUDGEMENT
This case was considered by 5 judges on the Constitutional Bench. Four judges formed majority while Justice Khanna cast a strong dissenting decision. The majority held that when there is a presidential declaration of emergency, no one has locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court for Hebeas Corpus or any other writ, order, or direction to challenge the legality of the detention order on the grounds that it is not in accordance with the provisions of the law.
DISSENTING OPINION
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna argued that invoking Article 359(1) does not deprive an individual ability to approach the Court for the enforcement of statutory rights.
He explained that while Article 21 loses some of its procedural power during emergency, but it retains its substantive authority, and that a State is not permitted to deny someone their life or freedom without a court order.
CONCLUSION
Article 21 was interpreted incorrectly in this case because a method that was not established under the law was later established under the law. When there is internal conflict in a country, the government does not have the authority to take people’s lives. Moreover, as a result of this decision, the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 takes place. In an interview with myLaw.net on September 15, 2011, Justice P.N. Bhagwati admitted that the Supreme Court’s decision in ADM JABALPUR was incorrect, and he apologized. This decision was overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India Nine judges of Supreme Court upheld individual liberty and privacy over the State’s interest.
FAQ
- What is the ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case?
ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, also known as the habeas corpus case, is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India from April 28, 1976, where it ruled that High Courts cannot uphold a person’s right to life under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution during a National Emergency.
- What was the historical background leading to this case?
The case arose during the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 26, 1975, following her election being declared null and void. The Emergency allowed the government to suspend constitutional rights, leading to the detention of political opponents under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
- What were the facts of the case?
On June 27, 1975, the right to approach courts to enforce Article 14 (Right to equality), Article 21 (Right to life), and Article 22 (Protection against detention in certain cases) was suspended. Several opposition leaders were detained without trial, and multiple High Courts upheld their right to file writs of habeas corpus. The government then approached the Supreme Court.
- What was the main issue in the case?
The central question was whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained during an Emergency when Articles 14, 21, and 22 were suspended, and whether relief could be provided to a detained person.
- What were the arguments presented by the petitioners?
The petitioners argued that during an Emergency, the executive has total control over state activities, and state interests override individual rights. They contended that the writ of habeas corpus should not be enforced even if Article 22 is a fundamental right, as the right to move a court for enforcement of a right under Article 19 was suspended.
- What were the arguments presented by the respondents?
The respondents argued that the purpose of Article 359(1) was to prevent petitions to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for specific rights but did not affect natural law, common law, or statutory law. They maintained that non-fundamental constitutional rights and statutory rights to personal liberty were unaffected by the Presidential order.
- What was the judgment in the case?
The majority of the Constitutional Bench held that no one could file a writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus during an Emergency. The court ruled that detention orders could not be challenged for legality during this period.
- What was the dissenting opinion?
Justice Khanna dissented, arguing that invoking Article 359(1) does not strip individuals of their ability to enforce statutory rights. He stated that while procedural powers of Article 21 might be curtailed, its substantive authority remains, and the state cannot deprive someone of life or liberty without legal procedure.
- What were the consequences of the judgment?
The judgment was widely criticized and led to the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, which aimed to prevent such misuse of power during emergencies. The decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and privacy.
- Was the decision ever acknowledged as incorrect?
Yes, in an interview in 2011, Justice P.N. Bhagwati admitted that the Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur was incorrect and apologized for it.
