Author: Nishitha V, Student at Saveetha School of Law
The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla 1976 SCC (2) 521, widely known as the “Habeas Corpus Case,” is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history. It emerged during the Emergency (1975–77), a period when fundamental rights—particularly the right to life and personal liberty—were placed under suspension. The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority decision, held that during such a period, citizens could not seek judicial remedy for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Justice H.R. Khanna’s solitary dissent upheld civil liberties, asserting that the rights to life and liberty are intrinsic and cannot be suspended. The case underscored the conflict between governmental authority and individual freedoms during times of national emergency.
Bench:
Majority: A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Y. V.Chandrachud, P. N.Bhagwati,
Dissenting: H. N. Khanna
Background of the case
During the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, India witnessed a significant erosion of democratic values and constitutional rights. Civil liberties were severely curtailed, political dissent was crushed, and thousands of opposition leaders, activists, and critics such as A.B. Vajpayee, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Morarji Desai were arrested and detained without trial under laws such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. Simultaneously, press freedom was suppressed through censorship and intimidation, preventing the media from reporting independently or criticizing the government.
One of the most critical constitutional steps taken during this time was the invocation of Article 359 of the Indian Constitution. This provision empowered the President to suspend citizens’ right to approach the courts for the enforcement of specified fundamental rights during a proclaimed Emergency. As a result, even the most basic rights—such as the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21—became unenforceable in courts. This meant that individuals who were arrested arbitrarily or detained without justification had no legal recourse. This scenario prompted the Supreme Court to examine whether it retained the authority to hear habeas corpus petitions challenging detentions imposed during the Emergency.
Issues Raised
1. Whether individuals can seek judicial remedy for violations of these rights while such an Emergency is in force.
2. Whether courts retained the authority to exercise judicial review over detention orders issued under Emergency laws.
Precedent case laws
- Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
This case played a crucial role in interpreting the scope of personal liberty under Article 21. The majority held that as long as a law followed the “procedure established by law,” it could not be challenged on the grounds of being unjust or unreasonable.In ADM Jabalpur, this precedent was cited to support the idea that personal liberty could be curtailed if done according to procedure—even during an Emergency.
- Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that during a proclamation under Article 359, a citizen could not move any court for enforcement of the suspended fundamental rights. However, it also allowed for a limited judicial inquiry into whether detention orders were issued under the legal framework. This was debated in ADM Jabalpur, as petitioners argued that even if rights were suspended, courts should still ensure that detentions were legal.
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Reaffirmed the principle that as long as a detention followed “procedure established by law,” it could not be challenged on grounds of violating personal liberty. This case was foundational for the government’s argument in ADM Jabalpur, supporting the limited scope of Article 21 during emergencies.
- Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966)
The court held that the detention under the Preventive Detention Act must be within the limits of law and should not be used arbitrarily. Though decided in a non-emergency context, it was cited in ADM Jabalpur to argue that arbitrary detention is unconstitutional even when preventive laws exist.
- Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1975)
Upheld the validity of preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) even if criminal proceedings were possible.This case strengthened the state’s position on using MISA for detentions during the Emergency.
- Mohd. Yaqub v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1968)
Addressed the scope of judicial review in preventive detention matters. It was cited to argue that courts could still review whether detentions conformed to statutory requirements.
- Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) (Bank Nationalisation Case)
This case had expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights and emphasized that the impact of laws on individual rights must be examined, not just their formal classification. It was used by petitioners in ADM Jabalpur to argue for a broader view of liberty, but its liberal approach was ignored by the majority in this case.
Supreme Court Verdict
On April 28, 1976, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court rendered its judgment, with a majority decision of 4:1.
- Majority Opinion:
Chief Justice A.N. Ray, along with Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati, delivered the majority opinion, holding that during the Emergency, the suspension of Article 21 meant individuals could not seek judicial remedy for violations of the right to life and personal liberty. They ruled that under Article 359, which suspended the enforcement of certain fundamental rights, courts lacked the authority to entertain petitions, including habeas corpus, even in cases of illegal or arbitrary detention. This judgment effectively upheld the government’s absolute power during the Emergency and excluded the judiciary from reviewing executive actions affecting personal liberty.
- Dissenting Opinion:
Justice H.R. Khanna was the sole dissenter in the landmark ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case. He strongly held that the right to life and personal liberty is not just a constitutional provision under Article 21 but an inherent and fundamental human right that exists irrespective of constitutional recognition. Justice Khanna argued that even during a state of Emergency, the state does not possess unchecked authority to detain individuals without due legal process. He emphasized that no government action should be above the law and that judicial oversight must continue to protect individual freedoms. His powerful dissent upheld the core principles of the rule of law and civil liberties at a time when the majority endorsed executive supremacy. His bold stand, however, came at a personal cost—he was passed over for the position of Chief Justice despite being the most senior judge. His dissent remains a symbol of judicial courage and integrity.
Conclusion
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla verdict is widely regarded as a regrettable moment in the history of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The majority decision, which upheld the suspension of the right to life and personal liberty during the Emergency, was heavily criticized for its deference to executive power and failure to safeguard fundamental rights. Legal scholars and civil society have since viewed the judgment as a setback for the rule of law and constitutional governance. In stark contrast, Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent has been celebrated as a defining example of judicial independence and moral courage. His opinion laid the groundwork for future jurisprudence affirming the inalienable nature of basic human rights.
The case’s legacy was formally addressed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court explicitly overruled the majority view in ADM Jabalpur. The Court reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty is fundamental and cannot be suspended, even during a national emergency. This landmark reversal has reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional rights and stands as a reminder of the enduring importance of upholding civil liberties, particularly in times of crisis.
