The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case, commonly referred to as the “Habeas Corpus case,” arose in 1976 during a tumultuous time in Indian history. This case revolved around the question of whether citizens could invoke the legal remedy of writ of habeas corpus against unlawful detention when Article 21, which guarantees the Right to Life and Liberty, was suspended during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a 4–1 majority judgment, concluding that citizens had no right to seek judicial intervention for the protection of their life or liberty while Article 21 was suspended. The lone dissent came from Justice H.R. Khanna, who argued vehemently that the rights to liberty and life are intrinsic to human dignity and cannot be infringed upon, even in times of emergency.
The judgment has been heavily criticized as a glaring example of the failure of judicial independence. Many view it as the apex court siding with the executive during a period marked by political repression. The decision effectively endorsed the suspension of fundamental rights and denied legal recourse to countless individuals detained arbitrarily under laws such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
Justice Khanna’s dissent is particularly notable. He contended that liberty is not merely a constitutional provision but a fundamental natural right. According to him, even with the suspension of Article 21, the state could not strip individuals of their life or liberty without proper legal authority. His dissent is now regarded as a landmark defense of constitutional morality, serving as a beacon for future interpretations of civil rights.
The ruling in ADM Jabalpur was eventually reversed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, which made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable even during emergencies. Furthermore, in the landmark case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the decision in ADM Jabalpur was flawed and overruled it, reaffirming the principles of liberty, dignity, and privacy as essential constitutional values.
The ADM Jabalpur case is often remembered as a dark chapter in India’s constitutional history, serving as a cautionary tale against judicial compliance with executive authority. However, the dissent articulated by Justice Khanna and the subsequent constitutional amendments have played a crucial role in restoring public confidence in the judiciary as a guardian of civil liberties.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
