Author: Shruti, from Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
To the Point
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is famous to be called as Habeas Corpus case. In 1971 election Indira Gandhi won and her opponent Raj Narain lost the election but Raj Narain move to the Allahabad High Court under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and claiming that Indira Gandhi has won the election by fraud by faulting the machinery. The case continued for 4 years and on 12 June, 1975 Allahabad High Court give verdict and the Indira Gandhi was found guilty and the election was declared null and void and she cannot contest election for the next 6 years. Indira Gandhi then move to the Supreme court and the Supreme court giver her the interim relief but the result remain the same. In India the protest was started and the environment become challenging. On 25th June rally was started by the Jay Prakash Narain in Delhi where he appealed to police officers that they should do the same as done by the Mahatma Gandhi and if government give any immoral or unethical order then they should deny to follow it. The Prime Minister Indira Gandhi found it to be a internal disturbances and requested the President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad to declare the emergency under the article 352(1), on 25 June, 1975. Under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971 opposition leaders like Jay Prakash Narain and others got arrested. The President also declare that no one can go to the Supreme Court and High Court for the violation of their Fundamental right. Arrested started moving to the High Court under article 226 for the Fundamental right that has been taken away under the MISA should be returned back to them. High Court held that Fundamental right cannot be suspended even during emergency and can move to the High Court. The government then move to the Supreme court because High court has given judgment in favor of opposition. The decision was given in favor of government by the Supreme court. Constitutional bench of 5 judge bench give this decision in the ratio of 4:1. Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice M.H. Beg and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud give the majority judgment which is against our civil liberties. They said we have got the Fundamental rights to enjoy during the peace of the country and have to leave when the government is in danger and for the security and the situation of the public danger. They said liberty can be taken in a situation like this. H.R. Khanna, the dissenting judge held that life and liberty was not new it is from very beginning even before the Constitution. Life and liberty is a natural right and it should not be taken away without proper procedure. The majority judgment overpower the Justice H.R. Khanna judgment. The judgement was given on 28th April, 1976.
Use of Legal Jargon
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case directed towards the issue of the writ of Habeas Corpus which means that when person is illegally detained then has to be produced before the magistrate. Using this writ any person can move to the court that the person is illegally detained and has right to move to court under article 32 and 226 in Supreme court and High court respectively. And discusses about the Fundamental right including article 21, article 19, and article 14 during the emergency situation. Talks about the suspension of the rights under the article 359 and how the court interpreted it during the emergency. It deals discussion that how the Constitution deals with the civil liberties.
Proof
The ADM Jabalpur case is a landmark case because it discusses the major issue i.e., Fundamental right. It addresses the issues that whether Fundamental rights specifically article 21 to be suspended during the emergency and whether court can judicially review the presidential decision to declare emergency and to control their arbitrariness and whether by passing this order executive is over exercising its power. The section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, under which the opponents are arrested is held constitutionally valid by the Supreme court and declare article 21 would also get suspended and can arrest anyone during the emergencies. However the case did not left the good impact and later it get overruled in the case K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4161) and the view of the Justice H.R. Khanna was upheld that without the procedure established by law, life and liberty cannot be taken back. Constitution only guaranteed these right but these rights were present even before the Constitution. The 44th Amendment Act which is passed in the year 1971 limited the Fundamental right suspension during the emergency especially the article 20 and 21(protection against the offences and right to life and liberty) which currently acting as an rule and prevailing in the society. In the case Supreme court denied the judicial review of the presidential order but overruled in the case of the K.S. Puttaswamy and declared the importance of judicial review and the Fundamental rights during the emergency. The executive decision in the case was not considered as a overrule but later criticized and turned in K.S. Puttaswamy case.
Abstract
The ADM Jabalpur case law deals with issues related to the Fundamental right suspension. The article covers the issues that to be addressed during the case and how the court come to the conclusion. The article discusses what are reason behind the decision of the Supreme court and how the decision has made an affect on the society. Whether the society criticizes the decision or accepted it. Addresses the issue of the Habeas Corpus and talks the about power of the executive to make the decision. Includes various articles that are need to be covered and section under Act of the law. Discusses how the decision of the case was overturned what impact does it made to society and give the importance to the judicial review as well as Fundamental rights even during the emergency.
Case Laws
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr v. Thakur Bharat Singh(1967)
This case states that Fundamental right can be suspended when there is a good faith in regard with the people. To represent and protect the people it can only be suspended during the emergency as in mentioned in the article 359.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain & Ors(1975)
The case of the ADM Jabalpur began with this case only as this case mentions the fraud of the Indira Gandhi in the election and voice raised by the opponent Raj Narain.
Conclusion
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case is a landmark judgment but it is considered as a bad precedent and get overruled in 2017 in K.S. Puttaswamy case . This case does not leave a good impact on the society as it ignores the Fundamental right importance and disregard the natural right. Fundamental rights are inalienable and inherent in all human beings and hence cannot be disregard.
FAQS
Is the case leave the good impact on the society?
No, the case does not leave the good impact as it ignores the Fundamental rights importance and the arbitrariness of the government is ignored under the power given to the government.
How the judiciary fails in the ADM Jabalpur case?
Judiciary does not able to give the reliable decision in the case of ADM Jabalpur because neglected the natural rights of the person but the dissenting judge H.R. Khanna decision was set as an example and taken the basis of decision in K.S. Puttaswamy case.
Can court judicially review the presidential decision?
In the case of the ADM Jabalpur court denied the judicial review during the emergency however I the 44th amendment court declared that arbitrariness of the presidential decision can be judicially review.
