CASE ANALYSIS- ADM JABALPUR VS SHIVKANT SHUKLA By - Animesh Nagvanshi

CASE ANALYSIS-

ADM JABALPUR VS SHIVKANT SHUKLA

Authored By - Animesh Nagvanshi

Citation: Air 1976 Sc 1207

Petitioner(S): Additional District Magistrate

Respondent(S): Shivkant Shukla And Others

Judges: Justice A.N Ray

                  Justice H.R Khanna

                  Justice M.Hameedullah Beg

                  Justice Pn Bhagvati

                  Justice Y.V Chandrachud

Forum: Supreme Court Of India

Date Of Judgement: 24/04/1976

INTRODUCTION

In the exercise of the authority granted by paragraph under [1], the President proclaimed a serious emergency on June 25, 1975, stating that the security of the nation is at risk. In accordance with the authority granted under [2], the President proclaimed emergency on June 27, 1975, that anyone (even a foreigner) right to approach a court under[3] for the implementation of fundamental rights during emergency shall stay suspended. At the time of proclamation of emergency, the right to move to court for the implementation of fundamental rights shall stay suspended.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Indira Gandhi after winning the 5th Lok Sabha elections in 1971 was challenged on the grounds of indulging in fraudulent activities during elections by the Allahabad High Court and this simply meant that she would not be able to hold her office for the next six years.
• Indira Gandhi took the case to the Honorable Supreme Court, which only granted a conditional stay as the Supreme Court was on vacation at that time.
• The [4]was passed by the government, inserting[5], effectively removing the Supreme Court authority to hear the case involving the elections and rendering the election for the position of president, prime minister, vice-president and speaker of Lok Sabha invalid in court of law.
• The Apex Court held that[6] invalid as it violates the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The[7] was passed by the Parliament in response to this judicially innovative notion of “Basic Structure” which stated that the President can impose National emergency for any region of the nation or all of India.
• So, Indira Gandhi imposed an emergency in the country from 25th June 1975. Several political opponents, including Morarji Desai and A.B Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Narayan were arrested under the [8]allowing no trial.
• Many people who were detained under the [9]approached several High Courts in compliance with the rules of[10], which guarantees the right to Constitutional Remedies, to secure the freedom of their loved ones through the use of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which offers relief when someone is wrongfully detained. Some of the petitioners even   received favorable decisions.
• Then the Government became concerned with these High Court Writs and approached the Apex Court in the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla.

ISSUE WITH THE CASE

• The President proclaimed a major emergency on June 25, 1975, citing internal issues as the reason for the threat to India's security in accordance with the authority granted by[11]. The President announced on June 27, 1975, in accordance with the authority granted by[12], that anybody (including foreigners) has no right to have their case brought in front of a court in order to uphold the liberty guaranteed under Indian Constitution[13].
• During the time of  proclamation of emergency, the Constitution and all ongoing court cases involving the use of the rights guaranteed under Constitution would remain suspended. Additionally, the Presidential Ordinance of June 27, 1975, stated that it would be in addition to and not insignificant to any orders issued prior to the date of the order contained in[14] of the Constitution.
• On June 29, 1975, the President extended the application of the order of June 27, 1975 to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

• Even while[15] is a basic right in and of itself, the State does not release any detainees while the Advisory Council believed there was insufficient justification for his detention and, as a result, continued to hold him in breach of the terms of [16]. The President after declaring emergency has stopped the ability to file an appeal with a court in order to enforce [17]right in accordance with an order made under Indian Constitution[18].
• For the purposes of applying the right to life and personal liberty, the right of a person to transfer a court is suspended in line with a constitutional provision, therefore it is incorrect to say that the outcome constitutes the law in current situation.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

• The respondents contend that[19] specific intent is to release the legislature from constitutional restraints so that, while the emergency is in effect, it is free to pass laws that takes away the basic freedoms outlined in the presidential proclamation for better governance of the nation. The[20] is cited as the statute that currently governs pretrial detention. The requirements outlined by this statute must be met by every arrest warrant that the executive branch has approved. The defense of the defendants, who claim that[21] is not the only source of the right to life and personal freedom.
• The presidential order does not impact non-fundamental constitutional rights deriving from Articles 256, 265 and 361(3) nor natural or contractual rights, or the lawful right to personal liberty. It is contented that only a statute, not an executive agency, has the authority to revoke legal rights.

JUDGEMENT

• A panel of five judges heard this case. Four of the five judges who heard the case decided in the state's favour, holding that individuals' fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are not applicable in times of emergency. In light of the presidential direction, all rights shall be void at the time of emergency.
• Additionally, it was decided that if the Presidential Order stated that no citizen of the country had the ability to appeal against the government by filing a writ of habeas corpus with the High Court if there is proclamation of emergency, and that all other court procedures would be postponed while the emergency lasted.
• However, Justice Hans Raj Khanna issued a dissenting opinion, and this opinion helped shape the future of law. He believed that[22], represents the essential principles of society and that the state cannot rob a citizen of these rights without having the proper legal authorization.

RATIO DECIDENDI

According to[23], the presidential order of June 27, 1975 prohibits anyone from submitting petitions under[24] to a superior court of habeas seeking to execute any remedy available against   a person detained under the[25] on the grounds that the warrant of arrest or detention is for a reason that is against the law, illegal, or masculine. The executive safeguards the nation's life in times of disaster and tribulation.

AFTERWARDS

The Parliament passed [26] which changed the validity of the President's Proclamation of Emergency may now be challenged in court on the basis of malfeasance.([27] made it immune from judicial review). It brought revocation of emergency under parliamentary control. Under [28], the words ‘Internal Disturbance’ were substituted by the words ‘Armed Rebellion’

CONCLUSION

In this instance,[29] has been misconstrued. In actuality, the lawfully invalid technique was later proved. When a nation experiences internal aggression, the government is not always to be blamed. They have the power to restrict the rights of both their own people and outsiders. It is verifiable that the president has the authority to revoke all basic rights during an emergency by executive order, but this order must take effect as of the day it was approved rather than the date it was carried out.

[1] Clause 2 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[2] Clause 1 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[3] Article 14: Right to Equality and Equal Protection of Law, Article 19: Freedom of Speech and Expression and   Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

[4] The Constitution (39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975)

[5] Article 329A of Indian Constitution

[6] Article 329A of Indian Constitution

[7] The Constitution (42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976) also referred as Mini Constitution

[8] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

[9] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

[10] Article 226 of Indian Constitution

[11] Clause 2 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[12] Clause 1 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[13] Article 14: Right to Equality of Law and Equal Protection of Law, Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty Personal Life and  Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

[14] Clause 1 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[15] Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

[16] Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

[17] Article 19: Freedom of Speech and Expression

[18] Clause 1 od Article 359 of Indian Constitution

[19] Clause 1 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[20] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

[21] Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

[22] Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

[23] Clause 2 of Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[24] Article 226 of Indian Constitution

[25] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

[26] The Constitution (44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978)

[27] The Constitution (42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976)

[28] Article 352 of Indian Constitution

[29] Article 21: Right to Personal Life