Background of the Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, commonly known as the “Habeas Corpus Case,” is one of the most controversial and infamous cases in the history of Indian jurisprudence. The case arose during the period of Emergency declared in India from 1975 to 1977, when fundamental rights were suspended and several individuals were detained without trial under preventive detention laws.
Key Issues Raised:
Whether during the period of emergency, the state had the authority to suspend the right to move to a court for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, thereby suspending the writ of habeas corpus?
Whether the Presidential Order issued during the Emergency, which barred individuals from approaching the courts to challenge their detention, was valid and constitutional?
Whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution could be suspended during an emergency?
Arguments from Both Sides:
ADM Jabalpur (Petitioner): The government argued that during the Emergency, fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, could be suspended, and individuals could be detained without trial under preventive detention laws. It contended that the preservation of public order and national security justified the suspension of fundamental rights.
Shivkant Shukla (Respondent): Shivkant Shukla challenged his detention under preventive detention laws, arguing that the suspension of the right to move to a court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, was unconstitutional and violated the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Judgement: In 1976, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgement in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, by a majority of 4-1, ruling in favor of the government (petitioner). The Court held that during the period of emergency, the state had the authority to suspend the right to move to a court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the writ of habeas corpus. It held that the Presidential Order issued during the Emergency, which barred individuals from approaching the courts to challenge their detention, was valid and constitutional.
The majority judgement famously stated that during the emergency, “even life is of no value,” indicating a severe limitation on the protection of fundamental rights. However, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented from the majority opinion, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be suspended even during an emergency.
Significance: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is a highly controversial and widely criticized judgement that marked a low point in the protection of fundamental rights in India. The judgement has been widely condemned for its endorsement of executive authoritarianism and the subordination of individual liberties to state power during the emergency. It sparked significant debate and criticism, leading to a reevaluation of the balance of power between the state and the individual, and ultimately contributing to the strengthening of constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government action.