ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
Constitutional LawShort summary
Legal Principle: Can the government, during an emergency, suspend the enforcement of Article 21 & bar judicial remedy through habeas corpus against detention orders.
Related Provisions: Article 14, Article 21, Article 32, Article 226, Article 359, Sec. 16(A) of MISA, 1971 [Repealed].
Case Summary: During the National Emergency declared on 25 June 1975, several political leaders and other activists, including Shivkant Shukla, were detained under MISA, 1971, without any trial and challenged their detention through writ of Habeas Corpus, and the court granted relief to the respondent. Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled in favour of the government and held that during the operation of the President's Order under Article 359(1), no writ of habeas corpus or any other writ under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge the legality of a preventive detention order, even on the grounds of mala fide or non- compliance with the statute. The majority ruled that Article 21 was the sole source of the right to personal liberty against executive action, and since the enforcement of that right had been suspended during the emergency, the courts could not examine the legality of detention.
However, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, holding that the rule of law survives even during an emergency and that no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty without the authority of law.
Legal Principle:
The Supreme Court held that during a Proclamation of Emergency, when the right to enforce Article 21 is suspended, a person detained under a preventive detention law cannot approach a court through a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of the detention.
Related Provisions:
Article 14: Right To Equality.
{The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.}
Article 19: Right To Freedom.
{Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.}
Article 21- Protection Of Life & Personal Liberty.
{No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.}
Article 32: Right To Constitutional Remedies.
{The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this act.}
Article 226- Powers Of High Courts To Issue Certain Writs.
{The High Courts shall have the power to issue writs, throughout the territories of its jurisdiction in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this act.}
Article 359: Suspension Of The Enforcement Of The Rights Conferred By Part III During Emergencies.
{During Proclamation of emergency, the President may by order suspend the enforcement of Fundamental rights , conferred as under part III of this act, except Articles 20 & 21.}
Section 16(A), MISA, 1971: Special Provisions For Dealing With Emergency.(Repealed).
{This shall apply during the period of a Proclamation of Emergency. The detention of individuals for internal security purposes is reviewed by the appropriate government to determine if it is necessary for effectively dealing with the emergency. If deemed, necessary, a declaration can be made to detain in the individual.}
Facts:
- The third Indian National emergency was declared on 25 June 1975, under Article 352 by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad citing internal disturbances, drastically altering constitutional governance and civil liberties.
- On 27 June 1975, Article 359(1) was invoked, suspending the right to approach courts for enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22, effectively limiting judicial remedies.
- During the emergency, the government detained thousands of people, opposition leaders, activists and ordinary citizens without trial under the MISA.
- The case stemmed from petitions challenging detentions in Madhya Pradesh. Detenus, including Shivkant Shukla. Initially filed as a writ of habeas corpus, by the wife of Shivkant Shukla. The respondent was a political activist detained under preventive detention during the emergency period. The High Court granted relief in favour of Shivkant Shukla.
- Aggrieved by the decision, the State appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge the aforesaid decision, along with other petitions filed by individuals detained during the emergency.
- This case is also called as Habeas Corpus Case because detained sought judicial relief through habeas corpus petitions challenging unlawful detention during emergency.
Issues Raised:
- Whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended completely during emergency declared under Article 352?
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when enforcing Articles 14, 21 and 22 during a national emergency proclaimed under Article 359(1) of the Constitution?
- Whether there was any scope for judicial review during an emergency?
Judgement:
Majority view: By 4:1 Majority, The Court Ruled In Favour Of The State.
The Court held that once Article 21 enforcement is suspended, courts cannot entertain any petition related personal liberty, including habeas corpus. In view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975, issued under clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations. The majority concluded that the Courts lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the legality of such detentions during the emergency, and the executive’s detention could not be judicially reviewed for the period during which the Presidential Order remained in force.
Dissent: Justice H.R. Khanna Dissented.
He holds the minority view, which was later accepted by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case (supra), as one of the most significant dissents Indian Constitutional Law.
Justice Khanna held that “The Rule Of Law Is The Antithesis Of Arbitrariness.”
He rejected the majority’s view that the suspension of Article 21 left a person without any legal remedy. He held that right to life and personal liberty is a natural and inherent right, recognized not created by the Constitution. Therefore, even if the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended, the State cannot deprive a person of liberty except according to law. Article 21 is not the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. Even in the absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law. He also held that the proclamation of Emergency does not place the executive above the law. Every detention must have the authority of law, and courts retain the power to examine whether the detention is authorized by statute. Without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning.
Authority Check: OVERRULED.
Case Title: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017 INSC 1235)