Comment on the Judgement Delivered By Justice H R Khanna in ADM Jabalpur case and its impact on the growth of Rule of Law
ADM Jabalpur Case (1976)
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, is one of the most significant and controversial rulings in the history of Indian constitutional law. The judgment was delivered by a bench of the Supreme Court of India during the Emergency period (1975-1977), which was declared by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The case primarily involved the question of whether the right to life and personal liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, could be suspended during the proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution. The ruling has had a profound and long-lasting impact on the growth of Rule of Law in India, especially in the context of fundamental rights and judicial independence.
Facts of the ADM Jabalpur Case
In 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbance as the reason. This gave the government extensive powers to curtail the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to move to a court for the enforcement of personal liberty (through habeas corpus petitions).
Several individuals, including Shivkant Shukla, were arrested during the Emergency period without trial or formal charges, and they challenged their detention through writ petitions for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, could be suspended during the Emergency. More specifically, the petitioners argued that even under an Emergency, the right to personal liberty should not be suspended, and they should be allowed to approach the courts for relief.
Judgment Delivered by Justice H.R. Khanna
Justice H.R. Khanna, who was a dissenting judge in the ADM Jabalpur case, delivered a landmark dissenting judgment. The majority of the bench, led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, held that during an Emergency, the right to habeas corpus could be suspended, and the courts had no jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions related to personal liberty.
Justice Khanna's dissenting opinion, however, stands out for its strong defense of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights even during an Emergency. His judgment is considered one of the most courageous and principled opinions in Indian judicial history.
Key Points of Justice H.R. Khanna's Judgment:
The Rule of Law as a Fundamental Principle:
Justice Khanna emphasized that the rule of law is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution and cannot be suspended or overridden by the declaration of an Emergency. He argued that personal liberty is not an absolute right, but it is fundamental, and even the state must operate within legal boundaries.
Interpretation of Article 21:
He emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is so crucial that it cannot be suspended even during an Emergency. He highlighted that Article 21 is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be suspended by the government simply because it declares an Emergency.
Judicial Review:
Justice Khanna took the position that the judiciary’s power of judicial review is paramount in protecting fundamental rights. He believed that the courts should remain the final arbiters of disputes involving individual rights, even during an Emergency. This was a bold statement against the majority view, which held that during an Emergency, such judicial scrutiny could be suspended.
Precedent of Habeas Corpus:
The dissent also pointed to the long-standing legal principle of the right to habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention. Khanna stated that suspending this right would be a dangerous precedent and would open the door for unchecked state power, undermining personal liberty and democratic principles.
Constitutional Limitations on Power:
Khanna’s judgment reiterated that the Constitution places limits on governmental power, even during an Emergency. He argued that the power to declare an Emergency under Article 352 does not empower the government to disregard fundamental rights entirely.
Majority Opinion vs. Khanna’s Dissent
While Justice Khanna dissented, the majority of the Supreme Court, in a 5-1 decision, held that Article 21 could be suspended during an Emergency. This meant that habeas corpus petitions could not be entertained by the courts during the period of Emergency, and the judiciary effectively accepted the executive’s actions in curbing individual freedoms.
The majority’s reasoning was based on the literal interpretation of Article 359, which permits the suspension of certain fundamental rights during an Emergency. Under Article 359, the right to move to a court for the enforcement of certain rights, including personal liberty (habeas corpus), could be suspended by the President. This was interpreted to mean that during an Emergency, constitutional protections on personal liberty were subordinate to the state's emergency powers.
Impact on the Growth of Rule of Law in India
Judicial Independence and Fundamental Rights:
Justice Khanna’s dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case became an important symbol of judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights. His opinion underlined the role of the judiciary as a check on executive power, especially in situations where the state might act arbitrarily or oppressively.
The judgment emphasized that the rule of law is not suspended during an Emergency and that the courts must ensure that the government does not overstep its constitutional powers.
Strengthening the Constitution’s Basic Structure Doctrine:
Khanna’s dissent laid the foundation for the later Basic Structure Doctrine, which was established in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973). The Basic Structure Doctrine held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including the protection of fundamental rights, cannot be altered or abrogated by a constitutional amendment. Khanna’s dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case can be seen as an early assertion of this principle.
The judgment made it clear that even in times of crisis, the basic structure of the Constitution, including the right to life and personal liberty, cannot be suspended.
Role of Courts in Protecting Rights:
Justice Khanna’s opinion significantly bolstered the role of the courts in protecting individual liberties. His stance on judicial review became central to later rulings where the courts took an active role in protecting fundamental rights against state action.
In the years following this judgment, the Indian judiciary gradually expanded its interpretation of fundamental rights and ensured that even during emergencies or periods of national crisis, the principles of justice and individual rights were safeguarded.
The Legacy of the Judgment:
Despite the controversial majority opinion in ADM Jabalpur, the legacy of Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent is today viewed as a beacon of judicial courage and commitment to constitutional values. His dissent laid the groundwork for future judicial decisions that affirmed the right to life and liberty, even in times of crisis.
The Indira Gandhi government’s emergency powers were eventually curtailed through judicial interpretations in later cases, with a significant expansion of the scope of judicial review.
Conclusion
The ADM Jabalpur case and Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissenting opinion had a profound and lasting impact on the growth of the rule of law in India. While the majority ruling during the Emergency period permitted the suspension of fundamental rights, Justice Khanna's dissent stood as a powerful defense of judicial independence and individual rights, setting a precedent for future judgments that would uphold constitutional safeguards against unchecked executive power.
His stance on the suspension of fundamental rights and the role of the judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping India’s approach to protecting the basic structure of the Constitution and ensuring that no emergency measure, however severe, can erase the rule of law in the country.
Justice Khanna’s judgment has remained a milestone in the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, reinforcing the centrality of individual rights and the independence of the judiciary in preserving the democratic ethos of India.
RELATED Blog
comments