TABLE ON CONTENTS

S.NO TOPICS PAGE NO.

1. Table of contents 1

2. Introduction 2

3. Case Title 3

4. Background of the case 4

5. Facts of the case 4-5

6. Issues framed 5-6

7. Argument 6-7

8. Judgement 7-8

9. Comments 8-9

10. Conclusion 9

11. References 10

1
 INTRODUCTION
“When histories of nations are written and critiqued, there are judicial decisions at the
forefront of liberty. Yet others have to be consigned to the archives, reflective of what was,
but should never have been.”

– Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud while overruling ADM

Jabalpur

On 25th June, 1975, the President of India in exercise of his power granted by Clause (1) of
Article 352 of the Constitution declared Emergency. With this news broadcast, ‘Emergency
provision’ was initiated. On 27th June, 1975, in exercise of powers given to the President by
Clause (1) of the Article 352 of the Constitution, the president declared that the right of any
person to approach a court for the violation of rights conferred by Article 14, 21 and 22.

Black law’s dictionary defines emergency “as a failure of a social system to deliver
reasonable conditions of life”. The present case of “ADM Jabalpur v. Shrikant Shukla”
concern to the time of Proclamation of Emergency by the then ruling party of Indira Gandhi.
The judgment was delivered on April 28th, 1976 (known as black day) by the constitutional
bench of five judges including the Chief Justice A.N. Ray, out of which four were in favor of
suspension of such right. As far as the majority of the judgment is concerned, it has been
established that the right of a person to appeal to the High Court pursuant to Article 226 of
the Indian Constitution for Habeas Corpus or any

other writ questioning the lawfulness of an order of detention at the time of the Emergency
Proclamation remains suspended and that person may not be able to appeal or obtain his right
from any High Court. This case was infamously referred to as the case of Habeas Corpus.
The decision taken by the Court to date holds poorly on the ground of equity.

2
 CASE TITLE

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla

CITATION

1976 (2) SCC 521; AIR 1976 SC 1207

COURT

Supreme Court of India

PETITIONER

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur

RESPONDENT

S.S. Shukla

BENCH

A.N.Ray, Hans Raj Khanna, Mirja Hameedullah Beg,

Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati

3
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 1975, National Emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution was imposed by
President Fakruddin Ali, on the advice of the then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, on the
ground of internal disturbances. Fundamental Rights under Article 14, 20 and 22 of the
Constitution were suspended for the period of Emergency, by a Presidential Order under
Article 359(1). Scores of political leaders who could prove to be a political threat were
arrested without any trial. Many petitions were filed in various High Courts across the
country, which gave judgements in favour of the petitioners. The Central Government
approached the Supreme Court, which became this very case.

This case is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, as the said writ was asked in the form of
relief by the petitioners. The term literally means “to produce the body” and the writ orders
the directs law enforcement agencies to present an arrested person in front of the Court and
explain the reason behind their detention.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Naraini,1 the election of Indira Gandhi was challenged by
the petitioner on the reasons of corruption. On June 12, 1975, Justice Sinha held Indira
Gandhi liable and proclaimed her election invalid. After this judgment, Indira Gandhi moved
to Supreme Court and requested contingent remain on the choice of High Court. This made
her crippled on the floor of Parliament and she was losing her political impression. The
resistance then again turned out to be incredible which made Indira Gandhi to proclaim
Emergency under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution through the then President
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and the Emergency was named as genuine because of "inside
unsettling influence". During that period, India endured a battle with Pakistan and confronted
dry season which turned economy awful fit as a fiddle. After the decree of Emergency, the
principal rights under Article 14, and 21 stayed suspended and procedures forthcoming in
Court worried about implementation of these Articles stay suspended for the time of
Emergency.

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438670/

4
 Any individual who was viewed as a political danger or any individual who could voice his
assessment politically was kept without preliminary under Preventive Detention Laws. This
circumstance prompted capture of a few resistance pioneers, for example, Atal Bihari
Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narain, Morarji Desai and L.K. Advani under MISA (Maintenance of
Internal Security Act) since they were ending up being a political danger to Indira Gandhi.
These pioneers at that point documented petitions in a few High Courts testing the capture.
Numerous High Courts decided for these petitions which made Indira Gandhi government to
move toward the Supreme Court on this issue which notoriously turned into Additional
District Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla. It is likewise called as Habeas Corpus on the
grounds that generally this is the writ documented in Court when an individual is captured. At
the hour of Proclamation of Emergency, this writ was not engaged as Rights under Article 21
stayed suspended.

ISSUES FRAMED
The issues in the said case were-

 Whether, under Proclamation of Emergency after President’s order, can the writ of Habeas

Corpus be maintained in High Court by a person challenging his unlawful detention?

 Was suspension of Article 21 fit under rule of law?

 Does detenue hold locus standi in Court during the period of Emergency?2

Rule

Upon the issues, it was talked about by the State that the lone reason for Emergency in the
Constitution is to ensure uncommon capacity to the Executive hardware which can hold
attentiveness over the usage of law and whatever State considers, it will be held legitimate.
Recording writ request in High Courts under Article 226 are suspended and candidates
reserved no option to move toward the Court for the usage of the equivalent and this would
have consistently excused such petitions. The way that Emergency arrangements in Part
XVIII of the Indian

2
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/5622.pdf

5
Constitution including Article 358, Article 359(1) and Article 359(1A) are necessities
concerning economy and military security of the State. The legitimacy of the law under
Presidential Order can't be tested on the ground of disregarding key rights which were
suspended by such request. These answers all the issues like "Regardless of whether, under
Proclamation of Emergency after President's structure, can the writ of Habeas Corpus be kept
up in High Court by an individual testing his unlawful detainment" for which the appropriate
response is No, one can't move toward the High Court for reclamation of his crucial right
under any Article of the Indian Constitution. Upon the issue of locus standi, the applicant
holds no ground for any alleviation.

STATE’S ARGUMENT
The State through its counsels argued that the purpose of emergency powers under the
Constitution was to grant the executive broad powers whereby it can take over the
implementation of laws, reason being, the interests of the State assume supreme importance
during the invocation of emergency. The State further contended that the rights of the
individuals to approach the Court have been curtailed under a constitutional provision i.e.
Article 359 (1) and thus, it does not amount to the absence of law and order as was argued in
various High Court petitions in this respect. The State also reminded the court that
emergency powers laid down in the Constitution were drafted so that the economic and
military security of the country will take precedence over everything else.3

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
The respondents stated that 359 (1) prohibited the right to approach the Court under Article
32 but such prohibition does not affect the enforcement of common law as well as the
statutory rights of personal liberty in the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution. Therefore, the Presidential orders were valid only to the extent of fundamental
rights and did not apply to Common Law, Natural Law, or Statutory Law. Respondents also
stated that the argument of the petitioners that powers of the Executive increase due to the
emergency are highly misplaced as the extent of the powers of the executive are already
provided in the Constitution. It was argued that even though Article 21 laid down the Right of
life and personal liberty as a fundamental right, the said Article is not the sole repository of
this right. The respondents also urged the Court to consider the fact that the Executive taking

3
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/adm-jabalpur-case-analysis/

6
over the role of the legislature goes against the basic constitutional principles that the framers
had envisaged.4

JUDGEMENT
In the judgment, Chief Justice A. N. Ray, M.H. Beg. J, Y.V Chandrachud. J and P.N.
Bhagwati. J was for the majority of the judgment and whereas the H.R. Khanna J. was for the
descent. After hearing the arguments by both the parties and considering the facts of the case
the judges thought that during the time of emergency if any action is taken by the legislature
whether it is arbitrary or illegal, the government's action cannot be questioned. This is
because in such circumstances the legislature safeguards the life of citizens of the country by
using its extraordinary powers, and which are provided to them as an emergency is also an
extraordinary factor as said in the constitution.5

The purpose and objective of Article 359 (1) were to prevent the enforcement of any
Fundamental Right mentioned in the Presidential order, which should be suspended at the
time of emergency. Even the application for Habeas Corpus under Article 491 of CrPC
cannot be filed simultaneously before the High Court. Another purpose of Article 359(1) was
not only to limit the actions of the legislative domain but also the actions of the executive
branch.

 The majority ruling was pronounced by four judges while Justice Khanna delivered a
powerful dissent.
 The Court held – Given the Presidential order dated 27 June 1975 no person has any
locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for
habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an
order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the
Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala-fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous
consideration.
 The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16A (9) of MISA.
 Justice H.R. Khanna in his dissent stated that invoking Article 359(1) does not take
away the right of an individual to approach the Court for the implementation of
statutory rights.
4
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/adm-jabalpur-case-analysis/
5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/

7
  He added that Article 21 is not the sole repository of life and personal
liberty.
 He further stated that during the proclamation of emergency, Article 21
only loses the procedural power but the substantive power of this
article is very fundamental and the State does not have the power to
deprive any person of life and liberty without the authority of law.
 There was so much political pressure during that particular hearing that this dissent
cost Justice Khanna his chance of becoming the Chief Justice as he was the second in
line to the Chair of CJI at that time.
 Even Justice Bhagwati expressed his regret later for siding with the majority by
saying that he was wrong not to uphold the cause of individual liberty6

COMMENTS
Upon the examination of the judgment, there are different perceptions on the given case. The
Supreme Court for this situation saw that Article 21 covers right to life and individual
freedom against its unlawful hardship by the State and if there should arise an occurrence of
suspension of Article 21 by Emergency under Article 359, the Court can't scrutinize the
position or legitimateness of such State's choice. Article 358 is a lot more extensive than the
Article 359 as central rights are suspended as entire while Article 359 doesn't suspend any
rights. In any event, being Emergency arrangements under Article 359 (1) awards unique
force and status to the Executive, it doesn't sabotage the fundamental parts of sway of
detachment of forces, prompting an arrangement of check and equilibrium and restricted
intensity of the Executive. There is a legitimate degree till which a State can act in or against
the residents and for this situation, it was high abuse of intensity of individual political
addition of a solitary individual. During Emergency, it is no place referenced that the
intensity of State "increments" from its unique force under Article 162. Likewise, State
possibly holds the privilege of capture if the supposed demonstration falls under Section 3 of
MISA and all its conditions is satisfied. On the off chance that any condition is unfulfilled, at
that point confinement is past the intensity of State. The choice by the Supreme Court is
supposed to be the greatest wrong judgment till date. The disagreeing assessment of Justice

6
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/

8
Khanna still holds more an incentive than the lion's share judgment including the then Chief
Justice.

CONCLUSION
The judgement in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S.Shukla also known as Habeas Corpus case has been
widely criticised for favouring the State instead of standing up for individual liberty. HM
Seervai termed the judgement so bizarre that if Justice Khanna was arrested for giving the
dissent he would not have had any remedy to secure his liberty. Immediately after the
emergency ended, the Supreme Court changed its stance by giving Article 21 a permanent
character in addition to linking the right provided in Article 21 with the rights provided in
Articles 14 and 19. The majority judgement, in this case, is guilty of aiding and abetting the
lust of power that the State apparatus at that time displayed. Commenting on the majority
ruling in this case, Justice Venkatachaliah in his Khanna Memorial lecture of 2005 stated that
the majority decision in the Emergency case should be “confined to the dustbin of history”
and it is very hard to argue with his assessment.

9
 REFERENCES

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438670/

 https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/5622.pdf

 https://lexforti.com/legal-news/adm-jabalpur-case-analysis/

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivakant-shukla/

 https://lawcirca.com/adm-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla-case-analysis-
suspension-of-fundamental-rights-during-emergency-the-habeas-corpus-
case/
 https://theleaflet.in/why-adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla-is-criticized-
for-wrong-reasons-a-case-for-constitutionalism/

10