Author: Ishanvi Tiwari, Bennett University
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, one of the most significant and controversial cases in Indian constitutional history, set a precedent on civil liberties during national emergencies and left a profound, lasting impact on India’s legal and democratic framework.
BACKGROUND and CONTEXT
The case arose during India’s Emergency period(June 1975-March 1977), declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after her 1971 Lok Sabha election was annulled by the Allahabad High Court for electoral malpractice.
The emergency led to the widespread suspension of civil liberties and arbitrary detentions. Under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), prominent opposition leaders, journalists, and activists were detained without trial.
Shivkant Shukla, along with several other petitioners, challenged these detentions because they violated the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The main legal question before the Supreme Court was whether citizens could approach the judiciary for the protection of their fundamental rights, particularly the writ of habeas corpus, during an emergency when those rights were officially suspended.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The petitioners argued that the mere proclamation of an emergency could not negate the right to life and personal liberty, which are the bedrocks of a constitutional democracy. Their stance was that some rights are so fundamental that they cannot be suspended even temporarily.
The government, on the other hand, contended that a presidential order under Article 359 (allowing the suspension of enforcement of certain rights during an emergency)conferred unchallengeable powers, and detentions under MISA were lawful and not subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court’s Decision:
On April 28, 1976, a five -judge bench comprising Chief Justice A.N. Ray and Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, and H.R. Khanna delivered the judgment. Four judges (Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati) ruled in favor of the government, upholding the suspension of habeas corpus and the non-enforceability of Article 21 and Article 22 during the Emergency.
The majority asserted that when enforcement of rights is suspended, courts cannot inquire into the validity of detentions. This essentially placed executive orders beyond judicial scrutiny, effectively suggesting that even if the State arbitrarily detains someone—even for reasons unconnected to the Emergency—no remedy existed for the citizen in court.
Dissent: Justice H.R. Khanna’s Stand
Justice H.R. Khanna was the lone dissenter, and his opinion has since been hailed as one of the most courageous defenses of constitutional rights in Indian jurisprudence. He reasoned that the right to life and liberty is not simply a constitutional privilege, but a natural and inalienable right pre-dating the Constitution. Khanna argued that even during an Emergency, these rights should never be entirely denied, and courts must be empowered to check the validity of detentions.
Khanna’s stance risked his own elevation to Chief Justice—a sacrifice he made for principle—further cementing his legacy as a defender of judicial independence and civil liberties.
Critical Analysis of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s majority decision drew severe criticism for excessive deference to executive authority and abdication of judicial responsibility. Legal scholars and commentators labeled ADM Jabalpur as “the darkest hour” in India’s constitutional history, with the judiciary failing as a check on state power during periods of crisis.[6][3][2]
Justice Khanna’s dissent, meanwhile, became a beacon for the later evolution of constitutional law. His emphasis on natural rights and judicial review profoundly influenced subsequent judicial thinking and constitutional amendments, most notably the 44th Amendment to the Constitution in 1978.
Legacy and Later Developments
The case’s controversial legacy spurred reforms aimed at safeguarding individual rights. The 44th Amendment restored the sanctity of life and liberty by ensuring that Articles 20 and 21 could not be suspended even during an Emergency, a direct response to the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur.
In later years, the Supreme Court openly criticized and overruled ADM Jabalpur. The landmark K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) judgment called the ADM Jabalpur ruling “seriously flawed,” and reaffirmed the inviolability and natural origin of fundamental rights. This shift further entrenched the concept that fundamental rights, especially those relating to life and liberty, are inherent and cannot be disregarded by procedural government actions.
Comparative Perspectives
ADM Jabalpur has been compared to other major constitutional cases worldwide where courts have chosen between safeguarding fundamental rights and granting exceptional powers to the State during crisis. Most democracies maintain checks on executive power, recognizing that emergencies should not provide cover for unrestricted violations of personal freedom and judicial independence.
Impact on Indian Democracy
The ruling tested the strength of Indian democracy, raising profound questions about the balance between security and liberty. ADM Jabalpur served as a cautionary tale about the fragility of constitutional protections and the dangers of unchecked executive power.
The criticism and subsequent overruling of the judgment illustrate India’s constitutional dynamism: the willingness to correct judicial errors and reinforce fundamental rights against state overreach. Its legacy is also a reminder of the role of dissent and judicial courage in sustaining the rule of law.
Conclusion
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla occupies a pivotal place in the narrative of Indian constitutional development. The case’s majority ruling, which allowed near-total suspension of judicial review during emergencies, is widely condemned for compromising individual freedoms. Justice Khanna’s dissent, extolling that certain rights are “inalienable,” has become a guiding principle for safeguarding civil liberties. The case teaches that democratic societies must never trade away essential freedoms for temporary security, and the independence of the judiciary is indispensable for the protection of rights.
While the ADM Jabalpur decision reflected a dark chapter in Indian legal history, it catalyzed reforms, debate, and eventual reassertion of constitutional principles. Today, it serves as both a warning and a lesson for future generations about the value of individual liberty, the importance of dissent, and the necessity of holding state power to account—even during its most expansive claims.
FAQS
Q1. What was the central legal issue in the A.D.M. Jabalpur case?
The Supreme Court was confronted with whether a person’s right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) could be suspended during the Emergency, and whether courts could be approached through habeas corpus or writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
Q2. What did the Supreme Court hold?
By a majority, the court held that no citizen has locus standi to enforce Article 21 during an emergency.
Q3. Who dissented and why?
Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, holding that the right to life and liberty is not derived from the Constitution but from natural law and cannot be suspended.
Q4. What is the present legal position?
ADM Jabalpur is overruled; Article 21 remains enforceable even during emergency.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/ADM-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla
[2] https://lawbhoomi.com/case-analysis-adm-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla/
[3] https://legalfly.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla-constitutional-law/
[4] https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/case-laws/adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla
[5] http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0062_1976
[6] https://www.scobserver.in/journal/on-civil-liberty-human-rights-and-the-supreme-court-there-is-little-to-celebrate-since-the-emergency/
[7] https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivakant-shukla/
[8] https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/adm-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM_Jabalpur_v._Shivkant_Shukla
[10] https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case
