Makhan Singh vs. State of Punjab [1964 AIR 381]
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964 AIR 381)
Citation: AIR 1964 SC 381
Bench: Justice Gajendragadkar, Justice Wanchoo, Justice Hidayatullah, Justice Raghubar Dayal, and Justice Ayyangar
1. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Historical Context:
India faced national security concerns post-independence due to partition, communal violence, and threats to public order.
The government had enacted preventive detention laws to deal with national security and internal disturbances.
During such periods, citizens’ rights—particularly Fundamental Rights—were restricted.
Facts of the Case:
Makhan Singh, a member of the Akali Dal (a Sikh political party), was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 by the Punjab government.
He filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging his detention as violative of Fundamental Rights, especially Article 19 (freedom of speech and movement).
2. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED
Whether a person detained under preventive detention laws can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Whether the suspension or limitation of Fundamental Rights (specifically Article 19) under Article 358 during an emergency prevents judicial review.
What is the scope of judicial review in cases of preventive detention during the proclamation of emergency?
3. ARGUMENTS
Petitioner (Makhan Singh):
Claimed his detention was illegal.
Asserted that the detention violated his Fundamental Rights under Article 19 and Article 22.
Argued that the Preventive Detention Act was being misused for political reasons.
Respondent (State of Punjab):
Defended the detention as legal under the Preventive Detention Act.
Claimed that since a Proclamation of Emergency was in force, certain Fundamental Rights were suspended under Article 358.
Argued that courts could not entertain writ petitions under Article 32 challenging detentions during the emergency.
4. SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed Makhan Singh’s petition but provided a significant constitutional interpretation.
Key Findings:
✅ 1. Article 358 Suspends Enforcement of Article 19 During Emergency
The Court held that during a national emergency, under Article 358, Article 19 stands suspended, and no one can claim a violation of Article 19 during that period.
Therefore, Makhan Singh’s claim based on Article 19 was not maintainable.
✅ 2. Article 32 Cannot Be Invoked for Suspended Rights
Since Article 32 is available only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and Article 19 was suspended, no writ could be issued under Article 32 on that ground.
✅ 3. Judicial Review Is Still Possible for Mala Fide Detentions
The Court clarified that judicial review is not completely barred.
A person can challenge detention:
If the detention order is mala fide,
If the detaining authority lacked jurisdiction,
If procedural safeguards under Article 22 are violated,
If the detention law itself is unconstitutional or ultra vires.
✅ 4. Preventive Detention Must Follow Constitutional Safeguards
The Court stressed that even during emergency, Article 22 (specifically 22(5)) is not suspended.
Authorities must provide the grounds of detention and allow representation.
5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
🔹 Clarifies Scope of Article 358:
The ruling firmly established that Article 19 is automatically suspended during an emergency under Article 358, and courts cannot entertain petitions for its enforcement.
🔹 Judicial Review Upheld in Limited Form:
Despite the emergency, the court preserved the scope of judicial review for procedural violations or mala fide actions.
🔹 Set Precedent for Habeas Corpus Cases:
This case became a precedent for the later controversial ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976), where similar issues of personal liberty during emergency were revisited.
6. COMPARISON WITH LATER CASES
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976):
In that case, the Supreme Court went further and held that even the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) could be suspended during an emergency.
This ruling was harshly criticized and was eventually overruled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
7. CONCLUSION
Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) remains a landmark case in constitutional law for interpreting the extent and limits of Fundamental Rights during an emergency.
It upheld the state's power to restrict rights during emergencies but also preserved a narrow window for judicial scrutiny.
The judgment balanced national security concerns with individual liberty, laying the groundwork for future constitutional debates on the scope of emergency powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments