5/8/25, 9:54 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

Original Content
CASE NAME ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR VS S. S. SHUKLA ETC. ETC.
CITATION 1976 AIR 1207
COURT The Supreme Court of India.
BENCH Hon’ble Ray, A.N. (CJ) Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. HameedullahChandrachud, Y.V. Bhagwati, P.N.
PETITIONER Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur
RESPONDENTS S. S. Shukla, Etc. Etc.
DECIDED ON Decided on 28 April,1976
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. On the basis of a majority decision of 4-1, the Supreme Court concluded in favor of the
government despite the fact that 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 to this, it brought to light the significant role that the court plays in the
protection of 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 who were considered to be 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.
file:///C:/Users/advsi/OneDrive/Desktop/Swagata/932110.html 1/5
5/8/25, 9:54 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

ISSUE RAISED
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).
If yes, then what is the extent of judicial scrutiny with respect to the aforesaid presidential orders?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
In the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the state maintained that the Constituent Assembly
established the emergency powers with the intention of giving the highest priority to the state’s military and
economic security over any other considerations. In the event of a crisis, the state will claim that its interests
are the most important thing and that they should take precedence over everything else.
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
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.
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.
I believe that the most significant argument that the respondents have presented is that although Article 21
does grant 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 particular 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 even while 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, which was sometimes referred to as the “darkest hour” of the Supreme
Court, was attributed to the fact that it failed to protect civil freedoms and judicial independence during the
file:///C:/Users/advsi/OneDrive/Desktop/Swagata/932110.html 2/5
5/8/25, 9:54 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

emergency that occurred 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 brought to light the importance of having checks and balances on the authority of the president, 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 case that is relevant, 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.

Rewritten Content
CASE call extra DISTRICT Justice of the Peace, JABALPUR VS S. S. SHUKLA and so forth. and so on.
quotation 1976 AIR 1207
court docket The preferrred court docket of India.
BENCH Hon’ble Ray, A.N. (CJ) Khanna, Hans Raj Beg, M. HameedullahChandrachud, Y.V. Bhagwati, P.N.
PETITIONER extra District Justice of the Peace, Jabalpur
RESPONDENTS S. S. Shukla, and many others. and many others.
decided ON decided on 28 April,1976
creation
it is extensively acknowledged that the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is a number of the most
contentious and full-size rulings in the annals of Indian constitutional records. It become heard with the aid of
the splendid court docket in 1976 at some stage in the emergency declaration by using Indira Gandhi, who
changed into serving as top Minister at the time. the problem in this situation become a project to the
emergency suspension of essential liberties that the authorities had applied. advise Shivkant Shukla initiated
the attraction in competition to the questionable practices of the preservation of internal protection Act (MISA)
that brought about the detention of the famend journalist L.okay. Advani. Shukla argued that such detentions
violated fundamental rights, consisting of Articles 21 and 22 of the charter. On the idea of a majority selection of
4-1, the very best court concluded in prefer of the government despite the reality that it declined to interfere on
behalf of folks that were held.

Civil liberties advocacy became initiated with the aid of Justice H.R. Khanna, the sole decide who dissented
from most of the people opinion, with the goal of protecting essential rights and the guideline of law.
alternatively, the ruling became met with tremendous outrage because it did now not respect the non-public
liberties of positive individuals. within the records of India’s constitutional democracy, the case of ADM Jabalpur
v. Shivkant Shukla is seemed as a in particular dreadful episode. in addition to this, it added to mild the
widespread function that the court performs inside the protection of sure rights.

statistics
moreover, Article 359(1) turned into involved, and the citizen’s right to technique the excellent courtroom in
accordance with Article 32 of the charter become taken away. This included the enforcement of Articles 14
(right to equality), 21 (proper to lifestyles and personal liberty), and 22 (protection in opposition to preventive
detention), and it passed off the very next day, which became the day that the emergency was declared.

underneath the protection of internal protection Act (MISA), folks that have been taken into consideration to be
political competitors or critics of Smt. Indira Gandhi turned into arrested below the name of preventive
detention. these individuals included prominent political leaders such as A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan,

file:///C:/Users/advsi/OneDrive/Desktop/Swagata/932110.html 3/5
5/8/25, 9:54 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

or even Morarji Desai. once these essential liberties have been denied to citizens, the MISA became
implemented.

those politicians approached the high Courts in their respective jurisdictions, and a number of them even were
given favorable orders. in the case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivkant Shukla, the country made the choice that
it needed to cease allowing those verdicts in want of the inmates to have effect. As a result, the country
challenged all of those high courtroom rulings at the same time earlier than the ideal courtroom.

issue RAISED
Maintainability of any writ petition below Article 226 for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to make certain
personal liberty on the floor that the order of detention is not valid according to the provisions of the renovation
of internal protection Act, 1971 (also referred to as MISA) examine with the orders issued via the President
beneath Article 359(1).
If yes, then what's the extent of judicial scrutiny with respect to the aforesaid presidential orders?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
within the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the kingdom maintained that the Constituent meeting
mounted the emergency powers with the aim of giving the very best priority to the country’s navy and economic
protection over every other concerns. within the occasion of a crisis, the kingdom will claim that its pastimes
are the maximum crucial aspect and they must take precedence over the entirety else.
The country proceeded to assert that, in keeping with Article 359(1), the charter itself has restricted the
fundamental proper of people to method the court docket for the execution of fundamental rights all through an
emergency. As a result, the scenario is not one wherein there is a lack of regulation and order or justice;
alternatively, it is the ultimate frame of regulation that has confined it.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
no matter the reality that Article 359(1) of the charter prohibits drawing close the ideal courtroom for the
execution of essential rights, the respondents inside the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla argued that
this provision does no longer limit the excessive court’s authority to implement not unusual law, herbal law, or
statutory rights of private liberty in accordance with Article 226.
moreover, the defendants within the ADM Jabalpur case argued that the charter already makes it abundantly
plain how a good deal electricity the executive department possesses and that, as a end result, the
enlargement of that electricity all through times of emergency is not a clear indication of its enlargement.
I believe that the maximum sizeable argument that the respondents have offered is that even though Article 21
does furnish the right to life, it isn't the only article that offers it. additionally, they argue that the govt department
taking manipulate of the legislative powers is in violation of the fundamental framework of the constitution and
that if the sort of issue have been to be allowed, it would undermine the incentive that the founders of the
charter had for writing the report.
JUDGEMENT
This unique case become heard through 5 judges who had been contributors of the Constitutional Bench.
whilst Justice Khanna voted in a manner that turned into strongly against the majority opinion, 4 of the justices
voted in accordance with the general public.

the general public of them had been of the opinion that when a presidential order of emergency is issued, no
man or woman has the authority to file a writ petition under Article 226 earlier than the excessive courtroom for
Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order, or course to challenge the legality of the order of detention for the
reason that such an order of detention isn't in accordance with the provisions of the Act or became surpassed
with malicious intentions.

in addition to keeping the legitimacy of MISA’s section 16A(nine), the court also raised an angry objection,
stating that referring to Article 359(1) undermines an man or woman’s capability to technique the courtroom
that allows you to vindicate their statutory rights.

In his opinion, the perspective expressed through the respondent changed into correct, and it's far undeniable
file:///C:/Users/advsi/OneDrive/Desktop/Swagata/932110.html 4/5
5/8/25, 9:54 AM Plagiarism Changer Online by SEO Magnifier

that Article 21 is not the handiest basis of personal liberty and the right to lifestyles. He said that even even as
Article 21 loses its procedural authority in the course of an emergency, the substantive power does no longer
disappear. He also said that a nation is not allowed to deprive someone of his existence and liberty except they
have a legal license to do so.

conclusion
The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla has yielded a contradictory legacy within the realm of Indian
constitutional regulation. most people ruling, which became on occasion known as the “darkest hour” of the
superb court docket, became attributed to the fact that it did not guard civil freedoms and judicial independence
for the duration of the emergency that came about among 1975 and 1977. then again, Justice H.R. Khanna
offered an change point of view that provided a robust defense of essential liberties.

this situation added to mild the significance of having tests and balances on the authority of the president, in
addition to the capacity for emergency powers to be abused. After the Emergency was declared over, reforms
were carried out that advanced judicial evaluation and rights protections. but, notwithstanding the truth that it is
no longer a case that is applicable, it's far still a cautionary story approximately the risks of abandoning
fundamental values.

The significance of the court’s position in defensive rights and the perils of unchecked emergency powers are
two of the maximum essential training that can be discovered from the Jabalpur case. the placement taken by
means of Justice Khanna exemplified bravery in the aspect of standing up for rights no matter the truth that she
had non-public and financial responsibilities. His criticism more suitable the attention of the courtroom to
constitutional standards and created the way for a extra widespread rights approach. when we consider
Jabalpur, we're reminded of the fragility of rights during instances of crisis and the importance of maintaining
liberties in a state of regular alertness.

Copyright © 2024 by SEOMagnifier.com All Rights Reserved.

file:///C:/Users/advsi/OneDrive/Desktop/Swagata/932110.html 5/5