Case Summary – ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

 

Since its passage in 1950, the Indian Constitution has provided citizens with a mechanism of enforcing their constitutional rights through numerous institutions, particularly the Supreme Court. In general, the Supreme Court has remained steadfast in its position as the protector of the Constitution's fundamental rights. The most serious challenge to the independence and integrity of the judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, came when the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi decided to declare a 'Emergency' under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution, which was proclamated by then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. The government proclaimed a state of emergency, claiming that domestic unrest was endangering India's security.

Factual Background of the Case

The declaration of emergency was not made on the spur of the moment.

• Smt. Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha was called into question by the Allahabad High Court.
• Justice Sinha found her guilty of improper conduct and declared her election void, effectively barring her from running for office or holding any position for the next six years.
• Gandhi took his case to the Supreme Court, but only received a conditional stay.
• As a result, on June 26, 1975, she decided to use the Constitution and declare an emergency in order to restore the power that had been curtailed by the aforementioned judgments.
• The right to petition the Supreme Court to enforce Article 14 (Right of equality), Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), and Article 22 (Protection against detention in certain instances) was taken away the next day when the power under Article 359(1) was applied.
• As soon as the above-mentioned clauses of the Constitution were invoked, the procedure of apprehending people who were perceived to be political opponents or critics began.
• A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan, and Morarji Desai were among those arrested under the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), which allowed for detention without charge or trial.
• Many people imprisoned under MISA challenged their imprisonment in various High Courts, and some of them received favorable orders.
• In the matter of ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, the government got concerned about the High Court orders and filed a petition with the Supreme Court.

State’s arguments

The State contended, through its lawyers, that the purpose of emergency powers under the Constitution was to give the executive extensive powers so that it could take over the implementation of legislation, because during an emergency, the state's interests take precedence. The State further maintained that under a constitutional provision, Article 359 (1), citizens' rights to approach the Court have been limited, and that this does not equate to a lack of law and order, as argued in many High Court petitions in this regard. The State further reminded the court that the Constitution's emergency powers were intended so that the country's economic and military security would take precedence over everything else.

Respondents’ arguments

According to the respondents, whereas 359 (1) prohibits the right to approach the Court under Article 32, it does not preclude the High Court from enforcing common law and statutory personal liberty rights under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the Presidential directives were only legitimate as far as fundamental rights were concerned, and they did not apply to Common Law, Natural Law, or Statutory Law. The petitioners' contention that the Executive's powers expand owing to the emergency is misguided, according to the respondents, because the Executive's powers are already defined in the Constitution. Even while Article 21 established the right to life and personal liberty as a basic right, it was maintained that the stated Article is not the sole repository of this right. The respondents further urged the Court to consider the fact that the Executive taking over the job of the legislative runs counter to the framers' essential constitutional principles.

Habeas Corpus Case Judgement

The judgement, in this case, was laid down by a 5-judge bench consisting of Justices Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati, and Khanna.

• Four judges ruled in favour of the majority, while Justice Khanna gave a forceful dissent.
• According to the Court, no one has locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ, order, or direction challenging the legality of an order of detention on the grounds that it is not under or in compliance with the Act, is illegal, or is based on extraneous consideration.
• The constitutionality of MISA's Section 16A (9) was likewise maintained by the Court.
• In his dissent, Justice H.R. Khanna said that invoking Article 359(1) does not take away an individual's right to petition the Court for the enforcement of statutory rights.
• He went on to say that Article 21 isn't the only source of life and personal liberty.
• He went on to say that while Article 21 loses procedural power during an emergency declaration, the substantive power of the article remains intact, and the state does not have the authority to deprive anybody of their life or liberty without the authority of the law.
• During one specific hearing, there was so much political pressure that Justice Khanna's dissent cost him his chance to become Chief Justice, as he was the second in line to the Chair of the CJI at the time.
• Even Justice Bhagwati later expressed regret for voting with the majority, saying that he had made a mistake by failing to defend the cause of individual liberty.

Conclusion

The decision in the Habeas Corpus case has been heavily panned for siding with the government rather than standing up for individual liberty. HM Seervai described the decision as "so odd" that if Justice Khanna had been incarcerated for his disagreement, he would have had no recourse to regain his freedom. Following the end of the emergency, the Supreme Court reversed its mind, giving Article 21 permanent status and tying it to the rights guaranteed in Articles 14 and 19. 

In this case, the majority judgement is guilty of aiding and abetting the State apparatus's hunger for power at the time. In his Khanna Memorial speech in 2005, Justice Venkatachaliah argued that the majority verdict in the Emergency case should be "limited to the dustbin of history," and it is difficult to disagree with his opinion.

The Supreme Court overruled the ADM Jabalpur case in the landmark Puttaswamy Case (Right to Privacy Case) in 2017.