The adm jabalpur case, also referred to as the habeas corpus case, has its roots in India’s “Emergency” period. The Indian Supreme Court ruled in the adm jabalpur v shivkant shukla case that the Constitution supersedes personal safety and freedom. The ruling in the adm jabalpur case was heavily criticized. The Supreme Court’s ruling is seen as the darkest since it jeopardized the foundations of Indian democracy. Just Justice Hans Raj Khanna of the high court’s five-member panel disagreed with the adm jabalpur case.
adm jabalpur v shivkant Shukla Case Facts
- In 1976, the Supreme Court of India’s five-judge panel heard the case.
- The case stemmed from India’s 1975 declaration of emergency, which suspended fundamental rights and civil liberties.
- Political activist Shivkant Shukla was taken into custody under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) during the Emergency and held without being given a chance to defend himself.
- Shukla’s spouse submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal mandate that requires an individual in custody or prison to appear before a judge or court.
- In a 4:1 split ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that people’s right to life and personal liberty could be suspended during an emergency and that courts could not intervene in cases involving the imprisonment of people in accordance with MISA or other preventative detention legislation.
- The ruling’s position on civil liberties and fundamental rights drew much criticism and controversy.
- In the 2017 case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, recognizing the right to privacy as a basic right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
- The adm jabalpur case is frequently used as a cautionary tale about the perils of executive overreach and the significance of defending fundamental rights and civil freedoms. It is still regarded as a significant case in the history of the Indian judicial system.
adm jabalpur v shivkant Shukla Issues
- Maintainability for any writ petition according to Article 226 for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to protect an individual’s right to privacy, based on the argument that the detention order is invalid in accordance with the terms of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA), as amended by the President’s orders under Article 359(1).
- If so, what level of judicial review is being given to the previously stated Presidential orders?
adm jabalpur v shivkant Shukla Judgment
A 5-judge panel made up of Justice Ray, Justice Beg, Justice Chandrachud, Justice Bhagwati, and Justice Khanna rendered the decision in this case.
- Four judges issued the majority decision, with Justice Khanna offering a strong dissenting view.
- The Court decided that, in light of the Presidential order dated June 27, 1975, no one has the authority to petition a High Court under Article 226 for habeas corpus or for any other writ, order, or direction to contest the validity of an order of detention on the grounds that it is unlawful, violates the Act, is based on false information, is factually or legally erroneous, or is based on extraneous consideration.
- The Court further affirmed Section 16A (9) of the MISA’s constitutionality.
- In his dissenting opinion, Justice H.R. Khanna argued that citing Article 359(1) does not deprive a person of their ability to petition the Court to have statute rights implemented.
- He went on to say that there are other sources of life and individual freedom outside article 21.
- He added, “The State does not have the authority to deprive any person of life and liberty without the authority of law. During the declaration of emergency, article 21 only loses its procedural power. The substantive power of this article is extremely fundamental.”
- Since Justice Khanna was the second in line to become the Chair of CJI at the time, his disagreement at the hearing cost him the opportunity to become Chief Justice due to intense political pressure.
- Even Justice Bhagwati later said that he regretted supporting the majority and that he was incorrect to disregard the importance of individual liberty.
One of the most criticized rulings in the history of the Indian judiciary is this one in the ADM Jabalpur case. The ADM Jabalpur case, sometimes referred to as the “Habeas Corpus Case,” has grown to be a significant legal dispute. It is stated that this case served as a sort of litmus test for the justices of the Supreme Court, with Justice Khanna being the only one to pass.
Shivkant Shukla was defending the political figures who were being held by the State, and Karan Vijay Singh is the ADM of Jabalpur who took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. Even now, this case is extremely important because it is such a landmark case in the Indian legal system. Even though the convicts were not given justice by the majority ruling, this was addressed in a later ruling.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
