Copyright infringement not intended

Source: Twitter

Context

The ADM Jabalpur ruling remains a vital cautionary story 50 years after the proclamation of emergency in 1975.

Background of the ADM Jabalpur

• Judiciary Powers: In India, the judiciary has been given particular powers to protect the public from executive and legislative excess. 
• Checks and Balances: This constitutional design protects citizens' rights while upholding the notion of checks and balances within a democratic framework.
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar often refers to it as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.

About ADM Jabalpur Case

Background of the Case

• The ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case (also known as the Habeas Corpus case) was triggered by the National Emergency declared in 1975 under Article 352, citing “internal disturbances.”
  
  
• This led to the curtailment of civil liberties across India.

Suspension of Fundamental Rights

• Fundamental Rights under Article 14 (Equality Before Law), Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention) were suspended using Article 359(1).
  
  
• This enabled the state to detain individuals without legal recourse.

Detentions and Press Censorship

• Thousands were detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
  
  
• Press freedom was heavily restricted, further stifling dissent.

Role of High Courts

• Despite the suspension, several High Courts provided relief to detainees using their writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Supreme Court Appeal

• The Union Government appealed against these High Court decisions.
  
  
• This led to the ADM Jabalpur case, where the legal question was:
  
  
• Can Article 21 be enforced during an Emergency?
  
  
• Is a Habeas Corpus petition maintainable during the suspension of rights?

What was the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur?

In a 4-1 majority decision, the Court concluded that if Article 21 was suspended during the Emergency, citizens had no right to seek legal protection for their lives or liberty. Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, claiming that rights such as liberty are inherent in human dignity and cannot be taken away even during an emergency.

Why is the judgment being criticised?

It is largely regarded as a failure of judicial independence, as the Supreme Court sided with the president during a period of political persecution. It supported the suspension of fundamental rights and denied legal redress to thousands of people who were unlawfully jailed under laws such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).

What was Justice H.R. Khanna's dissenting opinion?

According to Justice Khanna, liberty is an intrinsic natural right rather than a gift from the Constitution. He said that even if Article 21 was suspended, the state could not take life or liberty without legal permission. His opinion is today regarded as a seminal argument of constitutional morality.

How was the ADM Jabalpur decision subsequently reversed?

• The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) overturned the ruling, making Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable even during an emergency.
• Later, in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court specifically said that ADM Jabalpur was incorrectly decided and overturned it, confirming liberty, dignity, and privacy as fundamental constitutional rights.

Constitutional and judicial rededication after the emergency

• Maneka Gandhi's Case (1978): The famous Maneka Gandhi case (1978) dramatically broadened the reach of Article 21, tying it inextricably to Articles 14 and 19.
• It required that laws depriving life or liberty be "just, fair, and reasonable," ushering in a new era of substantive due process.
• The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978): The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) offered critical legal support by making Articles 20 (protection against conviction for offenses) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) non-suspendable even during an emergency. This directly enshrines Justice H.R. Khanna's position in the Constitution.
• K.S. Puttaswamy's judgment (2017): In the K.S. Puttaswamy decision (2017), a nine-judge court unanimously reversed the ADM Jabalpur decision. 
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud famously referred to the initial ruling as "seriously flawed," acknowledging privacy and liberty as natural and inalienable rights inherent in human existence.

Practice Question Q. Analyse how judicial introspection and subsequent course correction have contributed to reinforcing constitutional morality in India.