ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
1976 SCR 172
Case Summary
The Habeas Corpus case
FACTS:
During the National Emergency imposed from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, several individuals were detained under preventive detention laws without being provided the right to challenge their detention before a court. In response, multiple petitions were filed before various High Courts across India, arguing that even during an emergency, detainees retained their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Courts ruled in favor of the detainees, holding that despite the emergency, the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended. The Government of India, dissatisfied with these rulings, appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla. The primary question before the Court was whether a person had any remedy to challenge unlawful detention during the suspension of fundamental rights under a declared emergency.
RELEVANT ARTICLES:
Article 21:Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to the procedure established by law. This article was effectively suspended during the emergency as per the judgment.
Article 226:Empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by the Constitution, including those related to personal liberty. The decision allowed for the suspension of this power during the national emergency.
ISSUES RAISED:
Can the state lawfully suspend the writ of habeas corpus during a national emergency?
Is it constitutionally permissible to suspend fundamental rights, such as those enshrined under Articles 21 and 226, in the interest of state security?
Does the suspension of these rights undermine the inherent dignity and liberty of individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution?
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority, endorsed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the national emergency, thus upholding the government's authority to limit fundamental rights under exceptional circumstances. The majority opinion, notably influenced by Justice Bhagwati, sided with the government by prioritizing state interests over individual liberties during periods of crisis. Conversely, Justice Hans Raj Khanna’s dissent underscored the intrinsic nature of life and personal liberty, a viewpoint that was later vindicated in subsequent judicial pronouncements. The ADM Jabalpur decision has since been repudiated and overruled by later cases, particularly in the landmark decision of Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty are inalienable and pre-exist the Constitution.
Comments