Author: Shaan Shaikh, Kirit P Mehta School of Law Navi Mumbai, NMIMS
To the Point
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) marked a constitutional crisis where the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that during the Emergency, citizens had no right to seek habeas corpus even if detained illegally. Relying on Article 359(1), the Court upheld the suspension of Article 21, allowing the executive unchecked power to arrest without judicial review.
This judgment effectively suspended the right to personal liberty during the Emergency, showing the judiciary’s failure to protect citizens against government abuse. The Supreme Court allowed detention without legal safeguards, with only Justice H.R. Khanna, in his powerful dissent, firmly believed that the right to life and liberty are basic human rights that cannot be taken away even when the Constitution is under strain.
Though this verdict was later overturned in the Puttaswamy (2017) case, which reaffirmed personal freedoms, ADM Jabalpur remains a strong reminder of how the judiciary once stood silent during a time of political oppression.
Use of Legal Jargon
The ADM Jabalpur judgment involved a constitutional inquiry into the enforceability of fundamental rights during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. The case centred around the suspension of the right to constitutional remedies under Article 359(1), particularly the writ of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of personal liberty and judicial review.
The detainees, who were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), approached different High Courts using Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the legality of their preventive detention. They argued that their detention was illegal and wanted the courts to review it. However, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that since Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was suspended during the Emergency, the courts could not intervene or provide any legal remedy against such detention. This decision effectively gave the government unlimited power to detain people without any chance for the detainees to question or challenge their detention in court.
The Court effectively undermined natural justice, audi alteram partem, and the basic structure doctrine, allowing arbitrary deprivation of liberty without due process. In contrast, Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent emphasized that rule of law and inherent human rights transcend constitutional text and remain enforceable even during an emergency.
The judgment was later rendered per incuriam in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Court affirmed the primacy of individual liberty, limited government, and the non-derogable nature of certain fundamental rights, even in times of constitutional crisis.
The Proof
The Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) is substantiated by its majority opinion, which explicitly held that during the suspension of Article 21 under Article 359(1), no person had the locus standi to file a writ petition for habeas corpus, even in cases of illegal or mala fide detention.
The majority, comprising Chief Justice A.N. Ray and Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati, ruled that the right to life and personal liberty derives solely from Article 21, and once suspended, no legal remedy could be sought in any court. This reasoning granted the executive branch absolute authority, insulating it from judicial scrutiny, even in the face of proven abuse of power.
Contrary to this, Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent provided the strongest proof of the judiciary’s role as a constitutional watchdog. He held that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution, but rather an inherent and inalienable human right, which survives beyond the suspension of Article 21. His dissent highlighted that constitutional interpretation must uphold the rule of law, especially during emergencies when abuse is most likely.
Further proof of the Court’s error lies in the overwhelming post-facto condemnation from the legal community and the eventual explicit overruling of ADM Jabalpur in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court affirmed that fundamental rights are not expendable, even in extraordinary circumstances, thereby acknowledging that ADM Jabalpur was an aberration from constitutional morality.
The ADM Jabalpur decision is a clear example of how the judiciary failed the people during a time when the Constitution was under threat. Yet, Justice Khanna’s brave dissent remains a powerful reminder that even in the darkest times, the voice of liberty can still be heard.
Abstract
The 1976 judgment in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla delivered during the Emergency period in India remains a controversial landmark where the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of the right to life and liberty under Article 21, effectively denying citizens access to habeas corpus. By placing executive authority above constitutional safeguards, the Court legitimized arbitrary state action and ignored the fundamental principles of natural justice and rule of law. This article critically examines the legal reasoning adopted by the majority, contrasts it with Justice H.R. Khanna’s historic dissent, and explores the long-term impact of the verdict on constitutional jurisprudence. The judgment was eventually overturned in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case in 2017, where the Court admitted its past mistake and firmly declared that personal liberty cannot be taken away even in times of crisis. This marked a turning point, reminding us of how important it is to keep a balance between the power of the state and the rights of individuals. It also reminded us how important it is for the judiciary to stand strong and protect the core values of the Constitution, especially when they are most at risk.
Case Laws
1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
The primary case under discussion where the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of the right to habeas corpus during the Emergency, denying judicial remedy against illegal detention under Article 21 once suspended by Article 359(1).
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
This landmark judgment overruled the ADM Jabalpur verdict implicitly by reaffirming the inviolability of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, even during emergencies. It underscored the basic structure doctrine and the non-derogable nature of certain rights.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Post-Emergency case where the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, emphasizing due process and protection against arbitrary state action, thereby indirectly repudiating the reasoning in ADM Jabalpur.
4. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
It was a landmark case that upheld the importance of fundamental rights, where the Court ruled that Parliament does not have the power to amend or take away these rights under Article 368 of the Constitution. This case provided the backdrop to the struggle between parliamentary sovereignty and fundamental rights preceding ADM Jabalpur.
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which means that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core principles or destroy its fundamental framework. Although decided before ADM Jabalpur, this case sets the constitutional framework emphasizing that certain rights and principles, including fundamental liberties, cannot be abrogated.
6. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
This post-Emergency case reaffirmed the importance of a fair trial and due process, showing how the judiciary took steps to correct its past failures, especially those seen during the ADM Jabalpur case. It marked a return to upholding justice and protecting individual rights.
Conclusion
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla judgment remains a dark chapter in Indian constitutional history, exemplifying judicial abdication in the face of authoritarianism. By endorsing the suspension of habeas corpus and upholding arbitrary state detention during the Emergency, the Supreme Court failed its fundamental duty to protect individual liberty and uphold the rule of law. The lone dissent of Justice H.R. Khanna stands as a beacon of judicial courage and constitutional conscience.
While this decision was later repudiated and overruled, its legacy endures as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked executive power and judicial complacency. It underscores the vital role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional morality, especially during times of crisis, and reaffirms that the protection of fundamental rights is paramount and non-negotiable, even in emergencies.
FAQS
Q1: Key issue of the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case?
A: The key issue was whether a person detained during the Emergency, when fundamental rights enforcement was suspended, could file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge unlawful detention.
Q2: What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?
A: In a 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court held that during the Emergency, when fundamental rights were suspended under Article 359(1), people couldn’t even go to court to challenge their arrest. This meant that even if someone was being unfairly or illegally detained, they had no right to ask the court for help through a habeas corpus petition. In simple terms, the judgment gave the government unchecked power to arrest and hold people without accountability.
Q3: What is habeas corpus and why is it important?
A: Habeas corpus is a writ safeguarding individual liberty by allowing courts to examine the legality of a person’s detention. It acts as a crucial check against arbitrary state power.
Q4: Who dissented in the ADM Jabalpur case and what was the dissent about?
A: Justice H.R. Khanna stood alone in dissent, courageously stating that the right to life and personal liberty is so fundamental that it cannot be taken away even during an Emergency. He believed that courts have a duty to stand up for individual freedom and protect people from the unchecked power of the government. His lone voice became a powerful symbol of judicial courage and integrity.
Q5: How has the ADM Jabalpur judgment been viewed in subsequent years?
A: It has been widely criticized as a grave judicial failure. The verdict was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court in the 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, which reaffirmed the inviolability of fundamental rights.
Q6: What constitutional provisions were involved in the case?
A: The case primarily dealt with Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), 359(1) (suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency), and Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue writs).
Q7: What lessons does ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla teach about the judiciary’s role?
A: It highlights the essential role of the judiciary as a protector of constitutional rights and the dangers when it abdicates that responsibility, especially during times of political crisis.