Author: Avni Sisodiya, Shri Ram College of Law, Jabalpur
To the Point
The landmark case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), also known as the Habeas Corpus Case, was a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional history. It arose during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (1975–1977), during which several fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, were suspended.
The primary legal issue was whether a person could seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution for habeas corpus during the proclamation of Emergency when Article 21 was suspended. The majority of the Supreme Court (Justices A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati) held that during the Emergency, no person had the locus standi to approach a court for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 21. Thus, even if a person was detained illegally, they had no judicial recourse. This judgment effectively gave the executive unrestrained powers and severely curtailed individual liberty.
Justice H.R. Khanna, the lone dissenter, upheld the inviolability of the right to life and liberty, asserting that even in the absence of Article 21, these rights could not be extinguished, as they are inherent to human existence and protected under natural law. His dissent is widely celebrated as a courageous defense of constitutional morality and human rights.
The ADM Jabalpur ruling was heavily criticized for its abdication of judicial responsibility. It was eventually overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which reaffirmed that fundamental rights are not subject to executive suspension.
The case remains a cautionary tale of how constitutional values can be undermined during crises and underscores the judiciary’s critical role in safeguarding civil liberties.
Use of Legal Jargon
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, the Supreme Court addressed the justiciability of Article 21 during the proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 and the consequential Presidential Order under Article 359(1). The core legal issue was whether a detainee could invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 for a writ of habeas corpus when the enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22 stood suspended.
The majority (Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati, JJ.) held that the suspension of enforcement of Article 21 rendered the right to personal liberty non-justiciable, thereby barring judicial scrutiny of preventive detention orders, even if passed ultra vires or with mala fide intent. The Court adopted a strict positivist approach, subordinating natural law principles to the text of the Constitution.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent invoked higher constitutional morality, asserting that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inalienable natural right, enforceable even in the absence of Article 21. His dissent is a cornerstone of substantive due process jurisprudence in India.
This regressive precedent was emphatically overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), reinstating the inviolability of basic structure doctrine, judicial review, and rule of law, even during constitutional emergencies.
The Proof
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether individuals detained during a national emergency could seek relief through a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226, despite the suspension of fundamental rights under Article 359(1). The dispute arose during the Emergency proclaimed in 1975, when preventive detentions were being widely used under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971.
The petitioners challenged their detention orders, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty is inherent and not solely dependent on Article 21. They argued that such rights existed even outside the constitutional framework, drawing on the principles of natural justice and common law traditions.
Conversely, the State contended that once a Presidential Order suspending enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22 was in effect, courts were barred from entertaining any petition seeking enforcement of these rights—even in cases of illegal or mala fide detention.
The majority of the bench agreed with the State, holding that during an emergency, the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended in its entirety, and no legal remedy is available through courts. This interpretation effectively gave unchecked powers to the executive during the Emergency period.
Justice H.R. Khanna delivered a historic dissent, asserting that some rights, especially the right to life and liberty, are so fundamental that they exist independently of constitutional guarantees. He emphasized that the Constitution does not create these rights—it merely recognizes them.
The majority judgment was later overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which reaffirmed that core fundamental rights cannot be suspended, thereby restoring the balance between state power and individual liberty.
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) marked a controversial phase in India’s constitutional evolution, as it tested the limits of individual liberty during a state-imposed Emergency. The main legal issue was whether a person could challenge their preventive detention under Article 226 when the enforcement of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was suspended by a Presidential Proclamation under Article 359(1).
The majority of the bench ruled that during the subsistence of such an order, courts had no jurisdiction to entertain petitions questioning the legality of detentions, even if they were arbitrary or lacked legal justification. This interpretation granted sweeping powers to the executive and curtailed access to judicial remedies, thereby undermining personal freedoms.
Justice H.R. Khanna, in his landmark dissent, emphasized that certain fundamental rights, such as the right to life and liberty, are intrinsic to human existence and cannot be extinguished merely due to a constitutional suspension. He advocated for a broader, more principled understanding of constitutional protections.
This ruling was later overturned in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), reaffirming the importance of judicial oversight and the enduring nature of basic human rights, even during emergencies.
Case Laws
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This early ruling interpreted Article 21 narrowly, allowing for deprivation of liberty as long as the procedure was prescribed by law. The reasoning in this case influenced the majority view in ADM Jabalpur, favoring a literal constitutional reading over substantive fairness.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): Though not directly concerning emergency powers, this case emphasized that fundamental rights could not be abrogated by constitutional amendments, stressing their centrality in the constitutional framework.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In contrast to Gopalan and Jabalpur, this judgment expanded the interpretation of Article 21, declaring that any law affecting personal liberty must meet standards of fairness, justice, and reasonableness.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): This decision explicitly overruled ADM Jabalpur, holding that fundamental rights remain enforceable even during emergencies, reaffirming the role of judicial review and the basic structure doctrine.
Conclusion
The verdict in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) is widely viewed as a low point in the history of constitutional adjudication in India. By endorsing the suspension of the right to life and liberty during the Emergency, the majority judgment signaled a dangerous deference to executive authority and sidelined the role of the judiciary as a guardian of individual rights. This interpretation effectively left citizens without legal recourse against unlawful detention and undermined the principles of justice and the rule of law.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s courageous dissent stood in stark contrast, asserting that certain fundamental rights are intrinsic to human dignity and cannot be extinguished even during exceptional circumstances. His opinion, though not accepted at the time, later gained recognition as a cornerstone of constitutional morality.
The ruling was formally overturned decades later in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that core rights are not subject to suspension and that judicial oversight remains vital, even during emergencies.
Ultimately, the ADM Jabalpur case serves as a powerful lesson in constitutional democracy, reminding us of the need for vigilance in protecting civil liberties and maintaining a strong and independent judiciary.
FAQS
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?
The majority of the Supreme Court held that during the Emergency, when the enforcement of Article 21 was suspended by a Presidential Order, individuals could not seek judicial relief against illegal or arbitrary detentions. The court ruled that there was no judicial remedy available for unlawful detentions under Article 226 during this period.
Was the ADM Jabalpur decision ever overturned?
Yes, the ADM Jabalpur decision was overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty, cannot be suspended even during an Emergency. This case restored the primacy of judicial review and the rule of law.
How does the ADM Jabalpur case relate to the basic structure doctrine?
The case indirectly touches upon the basic structure doctrine, which was later solidified in cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973). The ADM Jabalpur judgment, by allowing the suspension of fundamental rights, was seen as an affront to the idea that certain features of the Constitution (like fundamental rights) are part of its unalterable basic structure.
Why is Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent considered important?
Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent is considered a landmark in Indian judicial history. His defense of fundamental rights and the rule of law in times of crisis became a foundational pillar for future legal interpretations and was vindicated when the ADM Jabalpur decision was overruled. His dissent is widely regarded as a powerful statement of constitutional integrity and human rights.
What impact did the ADM Jabalpur case have on Indian constitutional law?
The ADM Jabalpur case had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law. It highlighted the vulnerability of individual rights during times of crisis. The ruling’s eventual overrule in Puttaswamy reinforced the inviolability of fundamental rights and emphasized the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties.
