ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla [Habeas Corpus Case]
Case Brief: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
1. Facts
This case arose during the Emergency period in India (1975-1977), when Article 352 was invoked.
During the Emergency, the government suspended certain fundamental rights, including the right to move courts for enforcement of rights.
Petitioners filed writs of Habeas Corpus challenging unlawful detention by authorities.
The main question was whether fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), were suspended during Emergency.
Specifically, whether a detained person could approach courts during the Emergency to challenge illegal detention.
2. Legal Issues
Whether Article 21 (right to life and liberty) remains enforceable during a declared Emergency under Article 352.
Whether the right to file Habeas Corpus petitions is maintainable during Emergency.
Scope of fundamental rights suspension and judicial review during Emergency.
3. Supreme Court’s Decision
The majority judgment, delivered by a 5-4 split, held that during Emergency, even the right to life and liberty (Article 21) is not enforceable.
The Court held that when Emergency is declared, no person has locus standi to move courts for Habeas Corpus or for enforcement of fundamental rights.
The state’s action during Emergency, including detention without trial, was held not justiciable.
The judgment controversially upheld the primacy of executive power during Emergency.
The dissenting judges (Justice H.R. Khanna and others) argued strongly that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even during Emergency.
4. Significance
The case is widely criticized for undermining civil liberties and the rule of law.
It is considered a dark chapter in Indian constitutional history.
The judgment prompted later constitutional amendments, notably the 44th Amendment (1978), which ensured that Article 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency.
The case is often cited in discussions about judicial independence, civil rights, and emergency powers.
5. Related Case Laws
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — expanded scope of Article 21.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — judicial review and constitutional supremacy.
Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962) — early definition of right to privacy under Article 21.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Legal Issue | Enforcement of fundamental rights during Emergency; Habeas Corpus petitions |
| Decision | Fundamental rights including right to life and liberty are not enforceable during Emergency; no Habeas Corpus relief |
| Significance | Controversial judgment limiting civil liberties; led to constitutional safeguards post-Emergency |
RELATED Blog
0 comments