ADM JABALPUR VS SHIVKANT SHUKLA AIR 1976 SC 1207:

DATE: 28/04/1976

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice A.N. Ray, and Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, and Justice P.N. Bhagwati.

FACTS:

During the Emergency declared in 1975, the Indian government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, suspended fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Using the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), authorities arrested and detained several political leaders, activists, and citizens without trial. Many detainees challenged their detention by filing habeas corpus petitions in various High Courts, arguing that even during an Emergency, they had the right to challenge unlawful detentions.

Several High Courts ruled in favor of the detainees, holding that despite the suspension of fundamental rights, the government must justify the legality of detentions. Dissatisfied with these rulings, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that under the Presidential order issued during the Emergency, courts had no jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions. This led to the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla being heard by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The key issue in was whether detainees under MISA could seek habeas corpus during a National Emergency. The Court also examined if suspending fundamental rights, including Article 21, barred judicial review of detentions and whether other legal principles could protect individual liberty.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority, ruled that during a National Emergency, the right to seek habeas corpus under Article 21 is suspended, and no person has the right to challenge their detention in court. It held that fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, remain unenforceable if suspended under the President’s emergency powers. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, arguing that the right to life cannot be taken away even during an emergency.

The Supreme Court's majority held that during a National Emergency, Article 359 of the Constitution suspends the right to enforce fundamental rights, including Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court reasoned that since the President had already issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending enforcement of fundamental rights, no person, including detainees, could challenge their detention in any court. The majority also emphasized the doctrine of constitutional necessity, arguing that in times of national crisis, individual rights could be curtailed in favor of the state's security and stability. The Court relied on the principle that the executive’s decisions during an Emergency should not be subject to judicial review.

Justice H.R. Khanna, in his famous dissent, rejected the majority’s view and argued that the right to life is inherent and cannot be suspended, even during an Emergency. He maintained that no authority, including the state, could deprive a person of life or liberty without the rule of law. His dissent warned that if fundamental rights could be taken away so easily, it would lead to absolute power in the hands of the government, endangering democracy. His dissent later influenced constitutional amendments and reaffirmed the idea that certain fundamental rights must remain inviolable.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla marked a significant setback for civil liberties in India, as it prioritized executive power over fundamental rights during a National Emergency. By holding that no person could seek judicial review of detention under Article 21, the Court effectively granted the government unchecked authority to detain individuals without accountability. This decision severely undermined the rule of law, as it placed governmental actions beyond judicial scrutiny, setting a dangerous precedent that allowed potential misuse of emergency powers. The majority’s reliance on the doctrine of constitutional necessity ignored the foundational principle that fundamental rights exist to limit state power, even in times of crisis.

Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent exposed the flaws in the majority’s reasoning and highlighted the dangers of absolute executive power. His argument that the right to life and liberty is inherent and cannot be suspended became a cornerstone for future constitutional reforms, influencing the 44th Constitutional Amendment, which ensured that Article 21 remains enforceable even during an Emergency. The ruling was later widely criticized and effectively overturned by subsequent legal and political developments, reaffirming that constitutional democracy must protect individual freedoms, even in extraordinary circumstances. The case remains a cautionary tale about the judiciary’s role in upholding civil liberties against state overreach.