Skip to main content

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (India, 1976)

By

 


ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

(1976) 2 SCC 521
(Also known as the Habeas Corpus Case)

Bench

  • Chief Justice A.N. Ray

  • Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati

  • Dissent: Justice H.R. Khanna

Background / Facts

  • In June 1975, a National Emergency was declared under Article 352 on grounds of internal disturbance.

  • The President issued an order under Article 359, suspending the right to move courts for enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22.

  • Thousands of people, including political leaders, were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971.

  • Several detainees filed habeas corpus petitions in High Courts.

  • Many High Courts held that detention could still be challenged if it was illegal or mala fide.

  • The Union Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a person can file a writ of habeas corpus during Emergency when Article 21 is suspended?

  2. Whether right to life and personal liberty exists independently of Article 21?

  3. Whether courts can examine the legality of detention during Emergency?

Majority Judgment (4:1)

Held: NO habeas corpus lies during Emergency.

Key Points:

  • When Article 21 is suspended, no person has locus standi to move courts for protection of life or liberty.

  • Right to life and personal liberty are creatures of the Constitution, not natural rights.

  • Courts cannot examine legality, mala fides, or arbitrariness of detention during Emergency.

  • Executive actions during Emergency are beyond judicial review.

👉 This meant a person could be detained even unlawfully, with no legal remedy.

Dissenting Judgment – Justice H.R. Khanna

(Now considered one of the greatest dissents in constitutional history)

Key Observations:

  • Right to life and personal liberty exists independently of the Constitution.

  • Even during Emergency, the State cannot deprive life without authority of law.

  • Rule of law is above executive power.

  • Courts must act as guardians of liberty, especially in crises.

📜 Famous line:

“Even in the absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.”

Judgment Outcome

  • Appeals allowed

  • Habeas corpus petitions dismissed

  • Executive detention upheld

Why This Case Is Infamous

  • Judicial endorsement of authoritarianism

  • Suspension of rule of law

  • Complete abdication of judicial duty to protect fundamental rights

  • Later publicly regretted by judges who formed the majority

Aftermath & Overruling

  • 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978):

    • Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended, even during Emergency.

  • Explicitly overruled in:

    • Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

      • Supreme Court declared ADM Jabalpur “seriously flawed”.

Legal Significance Today

  • Cited as a constitutional cautionary tale

  • Justice Khanna’s dissent is now treated as correct law

  • Reinforced importance of:

    • Judicial independence

    • Natural rights

    • Limits on emergency powers

One-Line Exam Answer

“ADM Jabalpur represents the darkest hour of Indian judiciary, where the majority upheld suspension of the right to life, later corrected by constitutional amendment and judicial overruling.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

🌍 Human Rights Cases Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – USA

By
  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff:   Oliver Brown  (on behalf of his daughter,  Linda Brown ) Defendant:   Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 📜 Facts of the Case Linda Brown, an African-American child, was  denied admission  to a white public school close to her home. She was forced to attend a  segregated Black school  much farther away. The segregation was legal under the doctrine of  “separate but equal”  established in  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . ⚖️ Legal Issue Does racial segregation in public schools violate the  Equal Protection Clause  of the  14th Amendment  of the U.S. Constitution? 📖 Law Involved 14th Amendment  – Equal Protection Clause 🧠 Arguments Plaintiffs argued: Segregation creates a sense of  inferiority  among Black children. Separate educational facilities are  inherently unequal . Defe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

By
  Marbury v. Madison (1803) 📍 Court Supreme Court of the United States 👥 Parties Plaintiff: William Marbury Defendant: James Madison (Secretary of State) 📜 Facts of the Case In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed several judges (“ midnight judges ”). William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace . His commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Adams left office. New President Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission. Marbury filed a case directly in the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver it. ⚖️ Legal Issues Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If yes, was there a legal remedy? Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus under its original jurisdiction ? 📖 Laws Involved Article III of the U.S. Constitution Judiciary Act of 1789 , Section 13 🧠 Court’s Reasoning (Chief Justice John Marshall...
Post a Comment
Read more