Case Summary: ADM Jabalpur v.

Shivkant Shukla

Title of case: ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

Citation: 1976 (2) SCC 521; AIR 1976 SC 1207
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A.N. Ray, Hans Raj Khanna, Mirza Hameedullah Beg, Y.V.
Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati
Parties:
Petitioner: Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur
Respondent: S.S. Shukla, etc.
INTRODUCTION
April 28th, 1976 is considered to be the darkest day of Indian Judicial
System because on that day the judgement for an infamous case of
“ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla” was delivered.  This case is also
known as the “Habeas Corpus case”. This case pertained to the time
when the emergency was proclaimed by the ruling government of Indira
Gandhi who issued a Presidential Order when the court declared her
Prime Ministerial election as illegal. The case arose out of the contention
that whether a person has a right to approach the High Court or not
when its Fundamental Rights are being violated, especially Article 21
which relates to Right to Life and Liberty and also Article 14 which
relates to Right to Equality. The net result that came from the judgement
was really harsh, as it was established that a person’s right to approach
High court under Article 226 for writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ
for challenging the legality of an order of detention at the time of
proclamation of emergency will remain suspended. Moreover, the
person cannot move to High Court in order to seek remedy or justice.
This was the main reason for considering ADM Jabalpur as the darkest
spot in the history of Supreme Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 25th June, 1975, the President in exercise of his powers which have
been granted by Article 352(1) of Indian Constitution, declared that there
was a grave emergency whereby security of India is threatened by the
internal disturbances. On 27th June, 1975 , by exercising the powers that
are granted under Article 359 of the Constitution, it was declared that the
right of any person including the foreigners to move any court in order to
enforce their rights which have been granted to them under Article 14,
21 and 22 of the Constitution and also all the proceedings that are
pending in the court for the above mentioned rights will remain
suspended during the period of proclamation of emergency which was
made under Article 352 of Indian Constitution.
On 8th January, 1976 by exercising the powers granted under Article 352
of Constitution, the President passed a notification declaring that right of
any person to move to any court in order to enforce the right which have
been granted to them under Article 19 of the Constitution and also all the
proceedings that are pending in the court for the above-mentioned right
will remain suspended during the period of proclamation of emergency.
Thereupon, several illegal detentions were made including the detention
of some most prominent leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji
Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani who were detained without
any charges and trial. Due to this many writ petitions were filed
throughout the country. Nine High Courts gave decision in favor of the
detunes by laying down that even if the Article 21 cannot be enforced,
still the order of detention can be challenges as it was not in compliance
of the Act or was mala fide. Moreover, against these orders many
appeals were filed under the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case was whether a writ petition can be filed or not
under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court in order to
enforce the Fundamental Rights during the period of proclamation of
emergency.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER:
The main contention of the state was that the sole purpose of providing
the emergency provisions in Indian Constitution is that at the time of
emergency the Executive can make complete discretion over the
implementation of laws of the country by exercising the special powers
which have been granted to them by the Constitution of India, but while
exercising these powers the state should be given supreme importance.
They also contended that the state does not release the detunes despite
of the opinion of the advisory board that there is no sufficient cause for
their detention. Hence, detaining them without any cause is in violation
of their fundamental right which has been provided under Article 22 of
the Indian Constitution. Also, the detenus cannot approach any court for
the enforcement of their right under Article 19 of the Constitution, as it
has been suspended during the proclamation of emergency by the
President under an order issued under Article 359(1) of Indian
Constitution. The suspension of these rights is done under the provisions
of the Constitution and thus it cannot be said that the resulting situation
would mean absence of rule of law.

They further highlighted the fact that the Emergency provisions provided
in the Indian Constitution including Articles 358, 359(1) and 359 (1A) are
Constitutional necessities as the military and the economic security of
nation proceed everything else. Therefore, the validity of Presidential
Order under Article 359(1) cannot be challenged on the ground that it is
violating the Fundamental Rights of the citizens which has been
suspended by the above-mentioned article.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS:
It was contended by the respondents that the purpose of Article 359(1) is
to remove the restrictions on the powers of the legislatures so that at the
time of emergency it is free to violate the fundamental rights of the
citizens which have been granted to them by the Constitution of India.
They further argued that there is an act called Maintenance of Internal
Security Act 1971 which is there in force in order to govern pre-trial
detentions. Therefore, Article 21 cannot be considered as the sole
depository of the right to life and personal liberty.

They also argued that the Non-Fundamental rights which have been
derived from the Articles 256, 265 and 361 (3), neither the natural or
contractual rights and nor the legal rights to personal liberty are
unaffected by the Presidential order. These rights can be only taken
away by the statute and not by the Executive Department.

It was further argued that state and its officers have right to arrest only if
the detention fall under Section 3 of the MISA Act and also the
conditions provided under the said section were fulfilled. However, if any
condition is unfulfilled then the detention will be considered “beyond the
powers of the Act”.

JUDGEMENT:
JUDGEMENT BY THE MAJORITY
The judgment came in the ration of 4:1, Chief Justice A. N. Ray, M.H.
Beg. J, Y.V Chandrachud. J and P.N. Bhagwati. J were for the majority
of the judgment and whereas the H.R. Khanna J. was for the descent.
The four judges except Justice Khanna were of the opinion that during
the time of emergency if any action is taken by the government whether
it is arbitrary or illegal, its actions cannot be questioned. This is because
in such circumstances the government safeguards the life of the nation
by using its extraordinary powers, and which are provided to them as
emergency is also an extraordinary factor. Therefore, as liberty is a gift
of law, it can also be forfeited by law.

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

DISSENTING JUDGEMENT BY JUSTICE KHANNA

Law of preventive detention, of detention without trial is a curse to all
those who love personal liberty. It is with a view to balancing the
conflicting viewpoints that the framers of the Constitution made express
provisions for preventive detention and at the same time inserted
safeguards to prevent abuse of those powers and to mitigate the
harshness of those provisions. There was a dilemma for the framers of
the constitution that whether they should prioritize liberty of their citizens
or the security of the state and this dilemma was not laid to rest during
the drafting of the constitution.  The state has got no power to deprive
any person of their life and liberty without the authority of law, even in
the absence of Article 21. This is the basic assumption of the rule of law
and not of men in all civilized nations. Without such sanctity of life and
liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by
laws would cease to have any meaning.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: In Indian democracy, the 1975
Emergency is perceived by many to be one of the worst days.
Fundamental rights were stripped away for personal political gains and the
Union Government functioned according to its own whims and fancies.
When the judiciary was called upon to adjudicate this critical matter, the
case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla and
others appeared.

This case summary studies the ins and out of this landmark case which is
also commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case.

I. Introduction
The case of A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is one of the seminal
cases in the history of the Indian legal system, as it is one of those cases
that by highlighting the current l

Read more at Legal Bites © Reserved: https://www.legalbites.in/adm-

jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla-habeas-corpus/
മരണമെത്തുന്ന നേരത്തു നീയെന്റെ അരികിൽ ഇത്തിരി നേരം ഇരിക്കണേ കനലുകൾ കോരി മരവിച്ച വിരലുകൾ
ഒടുവിൽ നിന്നെത്തലോടി ശമിക്കുവാൻ ഒടുവിലായകത്തേക്കെടുക്കും ശ്വാസ കണികയിൽ നിന്റെ ഗന്ധമുണ്ടാകുവാൻ
മരണമെത്തുന്ന നേരത്തു നീയെന്റെ അരികിൽ ഇത്തിരി നേരം ഇരിക്കണേ  ഇനി തുറക്കേണ്ടതില്ലാത്ത കൺകളിൽ
പ്രിയതേ നിൻമുഖം മുങ്ങിക്കിടക്കുവാൻ ഒരു സ്വരംപോലുമിനിയെടുക്കാത്തൊരീ ചെവികൾ നിൻ സ്വരമുദ്രയാൽ
മൂടുവാൻ അറിവുമോർമയും കത്തും ശിരസ്സിൽ നിൻ ഹരിത സ്വച്ഛസ്മരണകൾ പെയ്യുവാൻ മരണമെത്തുന്ന നേരത്തു
നീയെന്റെ അരികിൽ ഇത്തിരി നേരം ഇരിക്കണേ  അധരമാം ചുംബനത്തിന്റെ മുറിവു നിൻ മധുരനാമജപത്തിനാൽ
കൂടുവാൻ പ്രണയമേ നിന്നിലേക്കു നടന്നൊരെൻ വഴികൾ ഓർത്തെന്റെ പാദം തണുക്കുവാൻ പ്രണയമേ നിന്നിലേക്കു
നടന്നൊരെൻ വഴികൾ ഓർത്തെന്റെ പാദം തണുക്കുവാൻ അതുമതീ ഉടൽ മൂടിയ മണ്ണിൽ നി- ന്നിവനു
പുൽക്കൊടിയായുർത്തേൽക്കുവാൻ മരണമെത്തുന്ന നേരത്തു നീയെന്റെ അരികിൽ ഇത്തിരി നേരം ഇരിക്കണേ 
മരണമെത്തുന്ന നേരത്തു നീയെന്റെ അരികിൽ ഇത്തിരി നേരം ഇരിക്കണേ..  ഉം....ഉം....