CASE STUDY

35. A.D.M Jabalpur v. S. Shukla

The order issued by the president under Article 359, Suspending the right of access to the courts for the enfo
emergency.

EXPLANATION-:

A.D.M Jabalpur v. S. Shukla is a significant and controversial legal case in the history of
Indian constitutional law, often referred to as the "Habeas Corpus case." Here's a detailed
summary of the case:
Background:
1. In June 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India,
citing political and social unrest.
2. During the Emergency, the government of India took various authoritarian measures
to suppress dissent and maintain control.
Key Issue: The central issue in this case was the validity of an order issued by the President
of India under Article 359 of the Indian Constitution, which suspended the right of citizens to
access the courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The order
effectively meant that individuals could not approach the courts for remedies if they believed
their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 were violated.

Summary:
The case reached the Supreme Court of India, and it was heard by a bench of five judges. The
majority judgment held that the Presidential order was valid, thereby suspending the right of
individuals to approach the courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights during the
Emergency.
The majority judges argued that fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal
liberty, could be suspended during an emergency, and individuals had no recourse to the
courts for protection. They took the view that the Constitution itself provided for such
suspensions in extreme circumstances and that the courts could not interfere with the
discretionary powers of the President in this regard.
Justice H.R. Khanna was the sole dissenting judge. He strongly dissented from the majority
opinion, emphasizing that fundamental rights were inherent and inalienable, and their
suspension during an emergency was not permissible under the Constitution. He asserted that
even in times of crisis, the right to life and personal liberty could not be taken away without
the authority of law
JUDGEMENT
In the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, the judgment was delivered by a bench of five
judges of the Supreme Court of India during the period of the state of emergency in India
(1975-1977). The judgment was highly controversial and is often referred to as one of the
darkest chapters in the history of Indian jurisprudence. In this case, the court ruled on the
suspension of the right to move the courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 21, and 22 during the state of emergency. Here's a summary of the judgment:
Majority Judgment: The majority judgment, delivered by Chief Justice A.N. Ray and three
other judges, held that the Presidential order issued under Article 359, suspending the right of
access to the courts for the enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22, was valid.
The majority judges essentially held that during an emergency, the right to move the court for
enforcement of these fundamental rights stood suspended.
Their reasoning was that fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty,
could be suspended during an emergency. They argued that the Constitution itself provided
for such suspensions during extraordinary circumstances. The majority judges held that the
right to life was not absolute and could be curtailed under certain circumstances.
Dissenting Judgment: Justice H.R. Khanna dissented from the majority opinion. He
vehemently disagreed with the majority's view, arguing that fundamental rights were
sacrosanct and could not be suspended, even during an emergency. He held that the right to
life and personal liberty was beyond suspension, stating that "even in the absence of Article
21 in the Constitution, the state has got no power to deprive a person of his life or personal
liberty without the authority of law."

CONCLUSION
In the case of A.D.M Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, the conclusion was that the order issued by the
President under Article 359, suspending the right of access to the courts for the enforcement
of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22, was held valid. This meant that the majority of the
Supreme Court judges concluded that during a state of emergency, the right to move the court
for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 would be suspended.
This controversial decision effectively allowed the government to curtail citizens' access to
the courts for the protection of their fundamental rights during the period of the state of
emergency. It was seen as a significant setback for civil liberties and the protection of
fundamental rights in India.
However, it's essential to note that this judgment was later overruled by the Supreme Court in
the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case in 1978. The Maneka Gandhi case reaffirmed
the importance of fundamental rights, even during emergencies, and established a more
protective precedent for the enforcement of fundamental rights in India. So, while the
conclusion in the A.D.M Jabalpur case was that the right to move the court during
emergencies could be suspended, this conclusion was ultimately reversed in later
jurisprudence.