ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

ADM JABALPUR
V.
SHIVKANT SHUKLAJ
(AIR 1976 SC 1207)
(THE INTERPRETATION OF ART. 359(1), 32 AND 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Abstract

Indira Gandhi won the election of Lok Sabha and the result was challenged before the Allahabad High Court and judgement hold that Indira Gandhi was convicted for indulging in malpractices regarding matter of election and her win as void which simply states that Indira Gandhi was not be able to be a part of Lok Sabha as well as not participate in any election or hold her office of power for the next 6 years. In ADM Jabalpur case the judgement of Allahabad High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court and was granted the conditional stay in her appeal.

Therefore to regain the control and power and stop the effect of judgement passed by court(26 June 1975), the emergency was imposed on 25 June 1975.

Primary details of the case:

Case no.	AIR 1976 SC 1207
Jurisdiction	Supreme Court
Case Filled on	June 1975
Case decided on	28 April 1976
Judges	A.N.Ray, Hansraj Khanna, M.H. Beg, Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N.Bhagwati

Brief Facts of the Case:

As the emergency was imposed, Article 359(1) was also involved in it and the citizen right to approach Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution to enforce their fundamental rights were taken away including right to equality (Article 14), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and protection against preventive detention (Article 22).

As all the rights were taken away from the citizens, the people who were the political opponents of Indira Gandhi were arrested in the name of preventive detention which included leaders like A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan and even Morarji Desai under the Maintenance of Internal Security (MISA).

These leaders approaches the respective High Court and some succeeded to get a favourable orders. But the State found the need to stop giving effect to these judgement that were in favour of the detainees and therefore all the orders were collectively challenged in the Supreme Court by the state under ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla.

Issues before the court:

Article 226 which stand for the maintainability of any writ petition of Habeas Corpus, to ensure the personal liberty on the ground that the order of detention is not valid according to the provision of MISA 1971 and the order issued by the President under Article 359(1).

What is the extent of judicial scrutiny with respect to the Presidential order.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant:

In a situation of emergency, it is the state’s interest that takes supremacy over all else and therefore during this time State Executive is given power by the Constitution to take over the implementation of laws, the emergency power were drafted by the Assembly with the view to put utmost supremacy to the State’s Military and Economic Security over else.

Article 359(1) – curtailed the rights of an individual to approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency and it’s not a scenario of the absence of law and order but it’s the supreme body of the law which has itself curtailed it.

Respondent:

Article 359(1) - curtail approaching the apex court for the enforcement of fundamental rights but it does not curtail the enforcement of common law, natural law or statutory rights of personal liberty in High court under Article 226.

The powers of executive do not increase during an emergency as the extent of its powers is already clearly, and explicitly laid in the constitution.

Legal aspect involved:

Article 359(1) – Clause for suspension of rights

Where a proclamation of emergency is in operation, the president may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of rights conferred by part III (except articles 20 and 21).

Judgement:-

5 judges heard the case and majority view was passed in the ratio of 4:1, with the dissenting view by Justice Khanna.

There is a presidential order of emergency, no person has locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court for any writ, order or direction to challenge the legality of the order of detention on the ground that such detention order is not in tune with the provision of the act.

The Court also upheld the validity of section 16A(9) of MISA.

Justice Khanna stated that invoking Article 359(1) does not deprive an individual of the right to approach the court for enforcing statutory rights. Article 21 is undoubtedly not the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. During an emergency, although Article 21 loses procedural power but the substantive power does not go away and that there is no way a state can deprive a person of his life and liberty except with authority by law.

Commentary:

ADM Jabalpur case has become a landmark case and is widely known as the “Habeas Corpus case”. It’s said that this case was like a test for the Supreme Court and only one judge passed the test.

This case is such a milestone case in the Indian Legal System that even today the case holds immense significance.

Subsequent Judgements:

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017, a nine judges bench of the supreme court reversed the order passed in the Habeas Corpus Case which upheld individual liberty and privacy over the State’s interest.