Scribd
Upload
15 views8 pages

Case Analysis (Pranshi Singhal) eng

The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case (AIR 1976 SC 1207) addressed the legality of detentions during the emergency declared by Indira Gandhi, ruling that citizens could not challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 during such emergencies. The Supreme Court upheld the presidential order suspending fundamental rights, but Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, arguing that the right to petition for statutory rights was not suspended. This case significantly influenced future legal interpretations, leading to the 44th Constitutional Amendment, which ensured that Article 21 rights could not be suspended even in emergencies.

Uploaded by

Pranshi Singhal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views8 pages

Case Analysis (Pranshi Singhal) eng

The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case (AIR 1976 SC 1207) addressed the legality of detentions during the emergency declared by Indira Gandhi, ruling that citizens could not challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 during such emergencies. The Supreme Court upheld the presidential order suspending fundamental rights, but Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, arguing that the right to petition for statutory rights was not suspended. This case significantly influenced future legal interpretations, leading to the 44th Constitutional Amendment, which ensured that Article 21 rights could not be suspended even in emergencies.

Uploaded by

Pranshi Singhal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

TITLE

ADM JABALPUR VS SHIVKANT


SHUKLA CASE
AIR 1976 SC 1207

Submitted By

PRANSHI SINGHAL

Semester second

Section-M
Enrollment no. 13417703522

Submitted To:

MS. NANCY DEWAN


Assistant Professor, VSLLS

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES


Pitampura, Delhi-110034
Case Analysis: ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla

Citation: AIR 1976 SC 1207.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Judges: Ray, A.N. (CJI), Khanna, Hans Raj, Beg, M. Hameedullah,


Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N.

Brief facts

At the point when the result of Smt. Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha
was challenged at the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court,
presided over by Justice Sinha, ruled that Smt. Indira Gandhi was found guilty
of misconduct in relation to the election, which resulted in the election and
her victory being declared null and void.

This, thusly, implied that Smt. Indira Gandhi not only was permitted to serve
in the Lok Sabha, but she was also prohibited from running for office or
holding it for the next six years.

Smt. Indira Gandhi in an effort to overturn the Allahabad High Court's


decision, Indira Gandhi filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but the court
only granted her a conditional stay.

As a result, on June 26, 1975, with the assistance of the president at the
time, she declared an emergency in order to regain control and power and
halt the effects of the
Supreme Court's decision.

The citizen's right to approach the Supreme Court in accordance with Article
32 1of the

1 . constitution of india
Constitution to enforce their fundamental rights, including the enforcement
of Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 22
(protection against preventive detention), was taken away the day after the
emergency was declared.

Citizens who were regarded as Smt Indira Gandhi’s political opponents or


critics were denied these fundamental rights. Indira Gandhi was captured for
the sake of preventive confinement including famous political pioneers like
A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan and even Morarji Desai under the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).

Using the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which provides relief when someone is
unlawfully detained; many people who were arrested under the MISA
approached various High Courts in accordance with Article 226 of the
Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Constitutional Remedies to
secure the liberty of their near and dear ones. Some even received favorable
orders.

The then government became worried about these High Courts and moved
toward the
High Court of India on account of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

Issue

The main issue was whether a writ petition under article 226 before a high
court is maintainable to enforce the personal write to liberty during
emergency declared under article 359(1).

Can court judicially review these arbitrary presidential orders?

By passing these orders, is the executive performing the role of legislature in


excess?

The logical question that followed was whether the Habeas Corpus order was
enforceable in such a situation?

Relevant provisions

All the relevant provisions that we need to know are:-

Article 14

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.

Article 21

Protection of life and personal freedom No person shall be deprived of


his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by
law.

Article 22

Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (1) No


person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed,
as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the
right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
The emergency provisions are contained in Part XVIII of the Constitution of
India, from Article 352 to 360. These provisions enable the Central
government to meet any abnormal situation effectively. Specifically, we will
talk about article 358 concerned with the suspension of provision under
article 19 during emergencies, article 359(1)

Article359 (1) says that President may by order declare that the right to
move any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III
(except Article 20 and 21) as may be mentioned in the order and all
proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so
mentioned shall remain suspended for the period.

Habeas corpus

The "Great Writ" of habeas corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution


that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. Translated
from Latin it means "show me the body." Habeas corpus has historically been
an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary
executive power.

Observations of Supreme Court

The executive guards the nation's life in an emergency.


 As a result, its actions—whether arbitrary or illegal—cannot be
questioned because the evidence it relies on is prevented by
security concerns, Queen v.

Halliday Ex Parte Zadiq2. Whether at common law or in law, the


enumerated freedom is constrained and governed by law.
 According to the court, no one has the right to file a writ petition
under Article 226 for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or
direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the
grounds that the order is illegal, vitiated by mala fides factual or
legal, or is based on extraneous consideration given the Presidential
order dated 27 June 1975.
 Section 16A (9) of MISA's constitutionality was also upheld by the
Court.
 In dissent, Justice H.R. Khanna stated that an individual's right to
petition the Court for the implementation of statutory rights is not
impaired by invoking Article 359(1).
 Justice Khanna solely relied on the judgment of Makkhan Singh v.
State of Punjab3 in which he noted: “If in challenging the validity of
his detention order, the detenu is pleading any right outside the
rights specified in the order, his right to move any court in that
behalf is not suspended, because it is outside Article 359(1) and
consequently outside the Presidential order itself.
 He added that Article 21 is not the only place where life and liberty
can be protected.
 He further expressed that during the declaration of crisis, Article 21
just loses the procedural power yet the considerable force of this
article is extremely crucial and the State doesn't have the ability to
deny any individual of life and freedom without the power of
regulation.

2
[1917] AC 210
3
1988 AIR 1705, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 613
Conclusion

It held that during an emergency the fundamental rights guaranteed by the


Constitution of India to the citizens shall not be available. All rights shall
stand extinguished in the light of presidential order.
Moreover, it was held that none of the citizens of the country shall
have the option of moving the High Court for writ of Habeas Corpus
if the Presidential Order said so and along with that all other
proceedings of the court shall remain suspended till the emergency
continues.
Immediately after the emergency ended the Apex Court changed its
stance by giving Article 21 a permanent character and further linked
Article

21 with Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution.

Aftermath
• According to reports, H.R. Khanna cannot become India's next chief
justice as a result of this statement. However, fortunately, the
decision in
K.S.puttaswamy v. Union of India2 upheld the ADM Jabalpur case
and emphasized the H.R. Khanna decision, which stated that "No
civilized state can contemplate an encroachment upon life and
personal liberty without the authority of law." The constitution does
not become the sole repository of the right when it recognizes it.
• Later as a result of the historic habeas corpus case, this was the
basis for the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 and attempted
to answer the question posed earlier. The unanimous adoption of
this amendment ensures that Article 21 cannot be suspended even
in an emergency.

2 AIR2017 SC 1416

You might also like