INTRODUCTION

It is widely acknowledged that the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is among the most contentious and significant rulings in the annals of Indian constitutional history. It was heard by the Supreme Court in 1976 during the emergency declaration by Indira Gandhi, who was serving as Prime Minister at the time. The issue, in this case, was a challenge to the emergency suspension of fundamental liberties that the government had implemented. Advocate Shivkant Shukla initiated the appeal in opposition to the questionable practices of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) that led to the detention of the renowned journalist L.K. Advani. Shukla argued that such detentions violated fundamental rights, including Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Based on a majority decision of 4-1, the Supreme Court concluded in favor of the government even though it declined to intervene on behalf of those who were held.

Civil liberties advocacy was initiated by Justice H.R. Khanna, the sole judge who dissented from the majority opinion, with the intention of protecting fundamental rights and the rule of law. On the other hand, the ruling was met with widespread outrage because it did not respect the personal liberties of certain individuals. In the history of India’s constitutional democracy, the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is regarded as a particularly dreadful episode. In addition, it brought to light the significant role that the court plays in protecting certain rights.

FACTS

Additionally, Article 359(1) was involved, and the citizen’s right to approach the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution was taken away. This included the enforcement of Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection against preventive detention), and it occurred the very next day, which was the day that the emergency was declared.

Under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), individuals were considered political rivals or critics of Smt. Indira Gandhi was arrested under the name of preventive detention. These individuals included prominent political leaders such as A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan, and even Morarji Desai. Once these fundamental liberties were denied to citizens, the MISA was implemented.

These politicians approached the High Courts of their respective jurisdictions, and some of them even got favorable orders. In the case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivkant Shukla, the state made the decision that it needed to cease allowing these verdicts in favor of the inmates to have effect. As a result, the state challenged all of these High Court rulings jointly before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Maintainability of any writ petition under Article 226 for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to ensure personal liberty on the ground that the order of detention is not valid according to the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (also known as MISA) read with the orders issued by the President under Article 359(1).
2. If yes, then what is the extent of judicial scrutiny with respect to the aforesaid presidential orders?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. In the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the state maintained that the Constituent Assembly established the emergency powers to prioritize the state’s military and economic security over any other considerations. In a crisis, the state will claim that its interests are the most important thing and should take precedence over everything else.
2. The State proceeded to assert that, according to Article 359(1), the Constitution itself has restricted the fundamental right of individuals to approach the Court for the execution of fundamental rights during an emergency. As a result, the situation is not one in which there is a lack of law and order or justice; rather, it is the supreme body of law that has restricted it.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Despite the fact that Article 359(1) of the Constitution prohibits approaching the Supreme Court for the execution of fundamental rights, the respondents in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla argued that this provision does not restrict the High Court’s authority to enforce common law, natural law, or statutory rights of personal liberty in accordance with Article 226.
2. Furthermore, the defendants in the ADM Jabalpur case argued that the Constitution already makes it abundantly plain how much power the executive branch possesses and that, as a result, the expansion of that power during times of emergency is not a clear indication of its expansion.
3. The most significant argument that the respondents have presented is that although Article 21 grants the right to life, it is not the only article that grants it. Additionally, they argue that the executive branch taking control of the legislative powers is in violation of the fundamental framework of the Constitution and that if such a thing were to be allowed, it would undermine the motivation that the founders of the Constitution had for writing the document.

JUDGEMENT

This case was heard by five judges who were members of the Constitutional Bench. While Justice Khanna voted in a manner that was strongly opposed to the majority opinion, four of the justices voted in accordance with the majority.

The majority of them were of the opinion that when a presidential order of emergency is issued, no individual has the authority to file a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court for Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order, or direction to challenge the legality of the order of detention on the grounds that such an order of detention is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act or was passed with malicious intentions.

In addition to preserving the legitimacy of MISA’s Section 16A(9), the Court also raised an angry objection, stating that referring to Article 359(1) undermines an individual’s capacity to approach the Court in order to vindicate their statutory rights.

In his opinion, the viewpoint expressed by the respondent was correct, and it is undeniable that Article 21 is not the only basis of personal liberty and the right to life. He stated that although Article 21 loses its procedural authority during an emergency, the substantive power does not disappear. He also stated that a state is not allowed to deprive a person of his life and liberty unless they have a legal license to do so.

CONCLUSION 

The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla has yielded a contradictory legacy in the realm of Indian constitutional law. The majority ruling, sometimes referred to as the “darkest hour” of the Supreme Court, was attributed to the failure to protect civil freedoms and judicial independence during the emergency between 1975 and 1977. On the other hand, Justice H.R. Khanna presented an alternate viewpoint that provided a robust defense of fundamental liberties.

This case highlighted the importance of having checks and balances on the president’s authority, as well as the potential for emergency powers to be abused. After the Emergency was declared over, reforms were implemented that improved judicial review and rights protections. However, despite the fact that it is no longer a relevant case, it is still a cautionary tale about the dangers of abandoning fundamental values.

The importance of the court’s role in protecting rights and the perils of unchecked emergency powers are two of the most important lessons that may be learned from the Jabalpur case. The position taken by Justice Khanna exemplified bravery in the aspect of standing up for rights despite the fact that she had personal and financial obligations. His criticism enhanced the attention of the court to constitutional standards and created the way for a more universal rights approach. When we think about Jabalpur, we are reminded of the fragility of rights during times of crisis and the importance of maintaining liberties in a state of constant alertness.