white black legal international law journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Peer-Reviewed Journal | Indexed at Manupatra, HeinOnline, Google Scholar & ROAD




Authored by - Manav Kirtikumar Thakkar


Table of Contents


ABSTRACT.. Error! Bookmark not defined.







   Facts of the Case:- 10

   Issues Raised- 10

   Judgment- 11

   Critical Analysis- 12







The Rule of Law emphasizes that the state is controlled by the law, not by the leader or the people's elected representatives. The Indian Constitution aimed for India to be a country governed by the rule of law and led by the country's laws. It states that the constitution is the ultimate power in the nation and that the legislative and executive branches draw their authority from it. Since its ratification in 1950, the Indian Constitution has given individuals a mechanism to protect their fundamental rights through numerous institutions, including the Supreme Court. The SC has mostly upheld its position as the protector of the Constitution's fundamental rights. When her election was deemed invalid, Smt. Indira Gandhi, the late Prime Minister, elected to proclaim an "Emergency" by a proclamation by then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad under Clause (1) of Art.352 of the Constitution[1]. This was among the most serious threats to the Apex Court's autonomy and authenticity. The government declared a state of emergency, contending political unrest as a threat to India's security. Several persons from various political backgrounds who spoke out on the issue were convicted under MISA[2]. They challenged their imprisonment in various High Courts. Some of them received favorable decisions while others did not. In this decision of ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla,[3] the then government became concerned about the HC rulings and filed a petition with the Supreme Court. The aim of the research paper is to understand the various aspects of the widely known “Habeas Corpus” case and evaluate the judgment in a critical manner which is followed by a detailed discussion of the ten similar cases relevant to this topic.


 Keywords: Emergency, Election, MISA, Habeas Corpus, Fundamental Rights



India is the world's largest democracy, with one of the finest drafted constitutions in the world acting as a guiding light. One of the most prominent examples is the insertion of emergency clauses in our Constitution. In the case of war, foreign assault, or violent insurgency, Part XVIII of the Constitution has provisions for establishing a state of emergency. "An emergency is a circumstance that necessitates swift action and prompt notice because it poses a threat to the nation's life and property," according to Black's Law Dictionary. Articles 352[4] through 360 of Part VIII of the Indian Constitution[5] provide emergency measures. Many consider the 1975 Emergency to be one of the worst episodes in Indian history. Fundamental rights were destroyed for personal political gain, and the Union Government governed according to its whims and fancies. The case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs. Shivkant Shukla[6] and others came up when the judiciary was called upon to adjudicate this critical situation. This case is remarkable for Justice Hf. R. Khanna's sole dissenting decision, which battled for Fundamental Rights primacy. The remaining judges concluded that basic rights would be suspended under the emergency. In 1975, President Fakruddin Ali proclaimed a national emergency under Art.352 (1) of the Indian Constitution[7] on the advice of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, alleging domestic turmoil. For the period of the Emergency, a Presidential Order under Art.359[8] suspended Fundamental Rights under Articles 14[9], 20[10], and 22[11] of the Constitution. The Central Government filed a petition with the Supreme Court, resulting in this case. In 1976, the case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs. Shivkant Shukla[12] was brought, opposing the arrest and detention of numerous politicians during the Emergency under the MISA, 1971[13], and the Fundamental Rights, including Art 14[14] and 21[15], were suspended. The HC found in favor of those imprisoned, but the Hon'ble SC overturned the decision, siding with the then-ruling government administration. Since basic rights were suspended during the proclamation of emergency, the SC decided that the petitioners lacked locus standi under Art.359[16] of the Indian Constitution. The aforementioned case occurred under Indira Gandhi's then-ruling government's Proclamation of Emergency, and a Presidential order of the same was issued after Indira Gandhi's election was found illegal. The case arose from a disagreement over whether a person's right to approach the respective HCis revoked when his fundamental rights, specifically Articles 14 [17]and 21, [18]are not granted or suppressed during the emergency, and enforcement of such rights is suspended during the period when the Proclamation of Emergency is in effect. The decision in “Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla” is among the most important cases to study in the history of the Indian judicial process since it laid the ground for later legal changes by revealing existing flaws. The majority of judges determined that constitutional rights must be suspended for the duration of the emergency. Some claim that it was just a selective reading of the statute, while others argue that it was the fear of an overly powerful administration on the part of the Center, but the fact remains that this decision is a stain on the Indian judiciary.


This research paper is critical Analysis of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976[19]  based on the concept of writ petition Habeas Corpus has the following research questions are as follows:

  • Whether writ petition of Habeas Corpus is maintainable by HC under Art.226[20] of the Indian Constitution under the proclamation of Emergency?
  • Whether during a state of emergency, does a detainee have locus standi in court?



The study titled “ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, A.I.R 1976[21]aims to represent what its title implies, namely a critical analysis of the case The study's objectives are listed below: -

  • To explain briefly to the readers, the facts of the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[22] case and to relate those facts dealing with Emergency, Election, MISA[23], Habeas Corpus, Fundamental Rights, etc.
  •  To critically analyze and comprehend in detail the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble judges of the SC of India.
  • To provide the findings, suggestions, and conclusions for the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[24]  case.
  • To briefly discuss ten similar case laws relating to the Habeas Corpus case.



This “A.D.M Jabalpur V. Shivakant Shukla”[25] also known as the “Habeas Corpus Case” dates back to the time of 1975 National Emergency, the period which is sometimes considered a black spot on the Political and Judicial History of India. The scope of the study aims to analyze and understand the enforceability of Fundamental Rights of an Individual under critical situation. Moreover, this research paper adds to make more and more people aware about this very important Writ of Habeas Corpus which can be availed in HC of any state of India under Art.226[26], and in the Apex Court that is the SC under the Art.32 of the Constitution[27], which particularly extend its hand to the unlawfully detained individual to safeguard and prevail the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty which is a Fundamental Right guaranteed to the citizens of India under Art.21 of the Constitution of India[28].

Further, the scope of study also includes the critical analysis of the writ of Habeas Corpus in India, quoting and referring to other relevant cases in its jurisdiction, considering the fact that India is the world’s largest democracy with a population of around 1.4 Billion trailing it to become the second most populous country in the world, henceforth logically making it one of the most important pioneers of Granting Personal Liberty and Adopting Constitutional framework with utmost dignity and diligence. The detailed study will prove to be beneficial and very informative for the readers, after which they shall understand and be well aware- for the rest of their ‘legally aware’ life span.


The current research is mostly based on doctrinal research principles. Doctrinal research is suggested by the notion of referring to and examining existing facts, such as laws and statistics. According to the researcher, the present study is strongly reliant on existing norms and how they interact. It is necessary to undertake doctrinal study and assess several relevant laws in order to perform successful research on such a topic. The researcher also feels that research techniques should contain secondary and tertiary empirical data to help in further study of the research subject, rather than being confined to analytical and prescriptive tools. As a consequence, the researchers believe that the strategies utilized in this study are appropriate for the problem at hand.



  1. Facts of the Case:-

When Smt. Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election victory was disputed in the Allahabad HC, the inception of this case began. The then CJ of the prestigious court, J. Sinha, found her guilty and accused her of misconduct. He also ruled the aforesaid election results illegal, which meant she was forbidden from holding office or even competing in any election for the following six years.

Smt. Indira Gandhi then knocked the doors of the Apex Court of the Nation with an appeal but was only granted a conditional stay. To restore the uncontrolled powers granted to her earlier, which had been restrained by the aforementioned verdict, she formed it on her own and proceeded to violate the Law and declare an Emergency on June 26th, 1975. The authority under Art.359(1) [29]was triggered the next day, and the privilege to reach the SC to impose a person's Fundamental Rights, including Art.14[30] which mentions the Right to Equality, Art.21 [31]which mentions the "Right to Life and Personal Liberty", and Art.22 [32]which mentions the Protection Against Detention in Certain Cases, were ripped away. As soon as the Emergency was announced, many politicians and individuals- consisting mainly of their (Ruling party) opposition party and open critics. These people included A.B. Vajpayee, Jay Prakash Naryan, Morarji Desai and many others. Individuals detained under the ‘MISA’[33] soon begin to approach various High Courts of the Country to challenge the validity of their arrest, where some were saved after favorable court decisions while others didn't. The Government concerned with these HC orders, again approached the S.C in the case of “A.D.M. Jabalpur Versus Shivkant Shukla”.[34]

  1. Issues Raised-

By Petitioner:-

  • Art.22[35] is a basic right in terms of itself, the State does not liberate any convicts when the Advisory Council feels there are no sufficient reasons for confinement and thus proceeds to jail him in violation of Art.22.[36]
  • The restriction of a citizen's right to move to a court for the purpose of upholding the “right to life and liberty” is done with a constitutional requirement, thus the result cannot be considered the law.

By Defendants:-

  • As per the defendants, the primary goal of Art. 359(1)[37] is to- “remove limits on the legislature's jurisdiction so that it can enforce the essential rights of the presidential order while the emergency is in place”. It is claimed that the 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act[38], which controls pre-trial imprisonment, is still in force.
  • The presidential order has no bearing on “non-fundamental constitutional rights deriving from Articles 256[39], 265, [40]and 361(3), [41]as well as natural or contractual rights or legal rights to personal liberty”. Only legislation, not the executive branch, has the authority to revoke legal rights.
  • Moreover, it was suggested that, because the preamble of the Constitution refers to a sovereign democratic republic, senior officials subordinate to the legislature be prevented from acting to the detriment of residents, save as permitted by current municipal law.
  1. Judgment-

This case was considered by a five-judge panel. Four of the five judges ruled in favour of the state, saying that people's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are not available during an emergency. All rights will be withdrawn in the case of a presidential order. Furthermore, it was decided that no citizen of the country should be able to petition the High Judicial for a writ of Habeas Corpus if the Presidential Order stated so, and that all other court operations would be postponed until the emergency was resolved. However, Justice Hans Raj Khanna gave a dissenting opinion, paving the way for future legal developments. The above-mentioned decision was reached by four of the five designated authorities. They were Justices M.H. Ask, “Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati”, as well as then Chief Justice A.N. Beam. Justice Khanna, who delivered the dissenting opinion, concluded by saying: "As seen by Chief Justice, Judges are not there essentially to choose cases, yet to choose them as they might suspect they should be chosen, and keeping in mind that it could be unfortunate that they can't generally concur, it is better that their freedom should be kept up and perceived than that unanimity should be made sure about through its penance.In this way, it can be seen that if there is an administrative arrangement that prevents the Court from requiring the creation of the grounds, data, and materials on which the request for detention is based and prevents the Court from requiring the creation of such grounds, data, and materials, it would obstruct and delay the HC’s sacred intensity activity under Art.226[42] and render that Art. culpable.

  1. Critical Analysis-

There are several perspectives on the given case based on the ruling. For this situation, the SC determined that Art.21[43] protects the right to life and individual freedom from unlawful state hardship and that if an occurrence of suspension of Art.21[44] by Emergency under Art.359[45] occurs, the Court cannot scrutinize the position or legitimacy of such State's choice. Art.358[46] is far more comprehensive than Art.359[47] since central rights are suspended in their entirety, whereas Art.359[48] does not suspend any rights. In any case, being Emergency arrangements under Art.359 (1)[49] grants the Executive distinctive force and status, it does not undermine the key elements of sway of detachment of troops, prompting an arrangement of check and balance and constrained intensity of the Executive. It is never stated that the intensity of the State "increments" from its distinctive force under Art.162[50]. When Justice Khanna was to submit the primary difficult inquiry, some terrible expectation of Indira Gandhi's administration was visible. There was considerable political unrest in the country prior to the declaration of emergency when Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha appointment was deemed illegal. This entire exercise was designed to tense up the opposition, and during the cycle, even the SC made big faults in the verdict, which is seen to be plainly unconstitutional. Justice Bhagwati was cited as "I have consistently inclined for maintaining individual freedom, for, I accept, it is one of the most appreciated estimations of humankind, without it every day routine would not merit experiencing. It is one of the mainstays of a free, just society. However, I don't figure it would be ideal for me to permit my adoration for individual freedom to cloud my vision or to convince me to put on the significant arrangement of the Constitution a development which its language can't sensibly bear." The verdict, in this case, contrasts with the ruling in Raj Narain's case, in which Indira Gandhi was given a clean sheet of health by the SC after the Allahabad HC ruled her culpable. One may claim that these two verdicts, which happened concurrently, have eroded the average person's faith in the legal system. J. Khanna only relied on the Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab ruling, which he noted: "If in testing the legitimacy of his confinement request, the detenu is arguing any privilege outside the rights determined in the request, his entitlement to move any court for that benefit isn't suspended, on the grounds that it is outside Art. 359(1) [51]and thusly outside the Presidential request itself. In such a case, it could be available to the detenu to fight that his detainment is unlawful for the explanation that the obligatory arrangements of the Act have been repudiated. Such a request is outside Art. 359(1) [52]and the right of the detenu to move for his delivery on such a ground can't be influenced by the Presidential request". Suspension of Art. twenty-one would essentially entail a restriction on the right to life and liberty, which goes against the essential right as well as the Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[53], of which India is a signatory. This one case became an indication of how four capable appointed authorities of the nation's highest court made a mistake under the intolerable influence of an awful character. With its decision, the SC violated all fundamental rights. The breaking point of the Indian legal executive strikes the very heart of fundamental rights. Except for Justice Khanna, all four of the selected officials proceeded to become India's Chief Justices. In 2011, Justice Bhagwati communicated his lament by saying: "I wasn't right. The dominant part of the judgment was not the right judgment. On the off chance that it was available to me to go to a new choice, all things considered, I would concur with what Justice Khanna did. At first, I was not for the larger part. At the end of the day, I do not have the foggiest idea why I was convinced to concur with them. I was an amateur around then, a youthful appointed authority.” Later, M N Venkatachalliah's statement in the Khanna Foundation Symposium on February 25, 2009, that the overwhelming decision in the Critical situations was "destined to the dust of history," was taken into account by the Supreme Court.




 The researchers for the purpose of this research paper have referred to sources inclusive of literature works, journal articles, commentaries, academic books etc. First of all, the literature works referred to by the researchers include the academic books like “Indian Constitutional Law[54]written by M P Jain and the book “Constitution of India[55]written by V.N Shukla. These books helped the researchers grasp the concepts related to the current study and build on that, also helped in our research to identify an in-depth understanding of the matter and to analyse whether the elements of the same are present in the current case, the book is an excellent source of information for the study. Secondly, the journal Art. ‘The Courts as Guardians of Fundamental Freedom in Times of Crisis,’[56] by Daniel C. Kramer, also helped the researchers in gaining knowledge as the author tells us that even the most democratic governments would suspend or restrict civil freedoms such as freedom of press, speech, habeas corpus, personal mobility, trial by a civilian court, and unbiased treatment of ethnic and racial groupings in times of emergency. Even international treaties established to preserve human rights in member countries have clauses stating that fundamental freedoms might be curtailed in a tumultuous circumstance. Another noteworthy commentary is "Creeping Decay in Institutions of Democracy,"[57] by K G Kannabiran, which has assisted researchers in understanding the age of independence, which despite a new Constitution coming into force on January 26, 1950, really perpetuated the old structure. It stated that we failed to establish a new system of justice and that the continuing of British Indian traditions was responsible for the Supreme Court's characteristically colonial attitude to the emergency and the Supreme Court's upholding of the Internal Security Act in ADM Jabalpur. It also states that we recognised and adopted the ideas outlined by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Barendra Kumar Ghosh. Finally, researchers learn about the procedural regimen provided for controlling governmental activity, which is intended to avoid arbitrary acts by the government, its agencies, and personnel, and procedural safeguards are frequently the bastion of a citizen as a person. “Fifty Years of Human Rights Protection in India-The Record of 50 years of Constitutional Practice[58]by Fali S. Nariman is another such journal which aims to provide a detailed knowledge on protection of rights of the citizen. It provided assistance to the researchers by supplying detailed information of the writ of Habeas Corpus and cases related to it.


As Per the Art. 359 Cl.1(A)-[59] "no one has the right to petition a superior court of habeas corpus for any other order or order to enforce any right to the personal liberty of a person detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971[60] on the grounds that the warrant of arrest or detention is for a reason not in accordance with the law, illegal, or masculine". In an emergency, the administration safeguards the country. As a result, its acts, whether unjust or unlawful, cannot be challenged since security concerns exclude the information on which it is based. The preservation of liberty resides in the person's better judgment and in the evolved structure of democratic and accountable governance. If exceptional authorities are given, it is because the emergency is unusual and only lasts for a limited time. Freedom is a gift from the law, which may be lost or limited. During an emergency, Art.359(1)[61] prohibits or suspends the execution of any basic right mentioned in the Presidential Order. Art.359(1)[62] seeks to limit the applicability of this rule not only to legislative and even to administrative branch actions. The scope of Art.359(1) [63]is not only to limit the right to participate in this Court, but also to remove any superior court that has ascertained that the legal authority established by Art.359(1)[64] pertains to the legal protections mentioned in the presidential order, either via a suggestion under Art.32 [65]or a request under Art.226. [66]


  • Korematsu v. United States[67]: In the case of Korematsu v. United States, Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu was an American activist who protested the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. He criticized then-US President Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order authorizing the deportation and imprisonment of persons of Japanese heritage living on the West Coast. The US SC affirmed the executive order, which compelled 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent to be seized from their homes and jailed in detention centers by relying on wartime hysteria tainted with racism, with three of the nine judges dissenting. The majority of the judges reasoned that the interments were ordered by the military for security reasons rather than racial animosity.. In Korematsu, the US government intentionally misled the Supreme Court, which affected the court's decision. In 2011, the US Department of Justice openly admitted their error. The majority justices in ADM Jabalpur just followed the then-attorney general's view without challenging it. ADM Jabalpur, like Korematsu, will hopefully serve as a reminder of what people might expect when courts accept the government's claims in civil rights cases.
  • Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra[68]: The case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra focuses primarily on safeguarding and protection of female prisoners in police detention facilities.  It deals with the safety of these women against torturing and ill-treatment, as well as their entitlement to fundamental rights and equality. The writ petition was established on a letter sent by Sheela Barse, a journalist, who complained about custodial brutality against female detainees in the police lock-up in Mumbai. The applicant alleged in her letter that she examined 15 female detainees in the "Bombay Central Jail" with the consent of the Inspector General of Prisons and 5 of these women claimed that they had been abused by the police in the police lock-up.   As a result, the petitioner drafted a letter detailing incidents of custodial brutality against female detainees in a Mumbai Police Lockup, which the Apex Court accepted as a Writ Petition. The SC ruled that denying convicts access to legal representation would imperil their right to equality, as stated in Art.14[69], as well as their right to life and personal liberty, as stated in Art.21 of the Indian Constitution.[70]
  • Makhan Singh v. the State Of Punjab[71]: The validity of the suspension of the right to petition any court for the enforcement of Articles 14, [72]21,[73] and 22 [74]under the proclamation of emergency declared during the Indo-China war was challenged in a similar case, Makhan Singh v. the State Of Punjab. The SC ruled that the suspension of rights only applied to those who were legally detained and did not apply to those who were illegally detained under preventive detention law. The SC stated that if a citizen's detention is unlawful, he has the right to petition the appropriate court for a writ of habeas corpus.


  • Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[75]: The Petitioner wrote in letter to a judges of the same Court, a death row inmate, alleged that a jailer tortured another inmate to get money from the victim, through his relatives who visited him. A habeas corpus petition was filed based on the letter. The State and the relevant officials were sent a notice by the Court. It also appointed amicus curiae and gave them powers and permission to visit the jail, check on the victim, relevant papers, and interview essential witnesses. After that, the amicus curiae concluded that the victim had agonized serious anal injury as a consequence of a rod driven into his private parts to inflict lethal torture, and that because the bleeding did not stop, he was transferred to Irvin Hospital. Further reported that the prisoner's explanation for the torture was an unfulfilled money demand from the jailer, and that staff officers attempted to cover up the crime by shushing the prisoner and the jail doctor and constructing a fake case study that the injury was caused by no other but himself by fall or piles. The court concluded in this decision that “A writ petition for habeas corpus can be filed not only for the prisoner's improper or illegal incarceration, but also for his protection from any kind of ill-treatment or discrimination by the authority entrusted with his detention. Thus, a petition for wrongful detention can be submitted, and the way in which the detention occurred can be investigated.”


  • Rudul Sah V State of Bihar[76]: The petitioner's incarceration following his acquittal was completely unreasonable. Art.32[77] gives the SC the authority to make directions or orders, as well as necessary writs, to enforce any of the rights granted by Part III of the Constitution. One of the telling methods to reasonably prevent the breach of that right and ensure due compliance with Art.21's duty is to mulct its offenders in the provision of monetary compensation. Individual liberties are the true bulwark of democracy.


  • Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling & Ors[78]: It was said in this instance that, rather than pursuing the conventional methods of bringing the individual before the court, a full investigation of the validity of the detention should be conducted by looking into the evidence and facts of the case. The focus of this case was on the definition and extent of the lawsuit, with the court ruling that the writ is an administrative rather than a substantial writ.


  • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa[79]: In this case what happens is in the rarest of situations; not only were culpable homicides and murders common, but so were custodial deaths, which actually surged in the 1980s. And they couldn't be proven in the majority of cases. In a country where the detainees' rights are expressly included in the constitution, It is self-evident that the rights to which they have already been granted cannot be taken away. And the verdict in this case, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, is unquestionably one of the country's landmark decisions, since the court indicated in its decision that compensation might be sought in the event of a prison death.
  • G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala[80]: The petitioner, a wholesale kerosene oil merchant, was convicted under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, to prevent him from behaving in a way that compromised the community's capacity to sustain essential supplies and services. The petitioner opposed the validity of the contested detention order, alleging that it was issued in fraudulent misrepresentation and based on malicious and fake reports prepared at the behest of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent did not file a testimony in response to the allegations, and the Home Secretary's testimonies were seriously faulty in many instances. The SC concluded that the detention order was manifestly and blatantly unconstitutional after evaluating all of the facts.
  • Ex Parte Merryman, (1861):[81] It is an American Civil War lawsuit challenging the president's authority to restrict the writ of habeas corpus during a national emergency. On May 25, 1861, a separatist named John Merryman was arrested at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland, by military authority for supposed pro-Confederate actions. Merryman was unjustly imprisoned, according to SC Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who was acting as a federal circuit court judge at the time. General George Cadwalader, commander of Fort McHenry, refused to comply with the writ, claiming that President Abraham Lincoln had prohibited habeas corpus. Taney cited Cadwalader for contempt of court and then published an assessment regarding Art. I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which enables disqualification of habeas corpus "where the public safety may necessitate it in times of revolt or invasion." Taney contended that only Congress, not the president, has the authority of suspension. In a statement to Congress in July 1861, President Lincoln explained his actions. More crucially, during the Civil War, Lincoln rejected Taney's ruling and maintained the suspension of habeas corpus. Merryman, on the other hand, was later released. The question of law of whether Congress or the president has the authority to suspend habeas corpus never was formally settled.
  • A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras[82]: In this case, the constitutional competence of preventive detention law was challenged. If it inhibits a person's personal liberty, a state must be capable to make such rules in the first place. If the laws that enable detention are likewise illegal, it is ruled to be illegal. A person's right to make a lawsuit with the court exists. A person may appeal a HC order granting or rejecting a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court.


ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla[83], popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, has been heavily condemned for preferring the state above individual liberty. Shortly after the emergency ceased, the Hon’ble SC reversed its position by making Art.21[84] official and further linking it to Articles 14[85] and 19 of the Constitution[86]. The SC of India reversed this case in the Puttaswamy Case (Right to Privacy Case) in 2017[87].

Despite arguing for the legal validity of the judgment, it is widely acknowledged that it was a low point for the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Constitutionalism was frequently mentioned by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee. This is a concept that exists outside of the language of the Constitution and refers to the application of constitutional ideas to guarantee that society is just, equitable, and fair. Dr. Ambedkar felt this attitude and emotion of willingness to uphold the Constitution's ideals to be fundamental for any democracy. There will be injustice no matter how flawless and fool-proof the Constitution is if Constitutionalism does not inhere in the population. As a consequence, no matter how flawed the Constitution is, if citizens embody the values of Constitutionalism, we will be in a far better position as a nation. Lawyers and judges have legal responsibilities, but they are also citizens and humans. Only the principle of constitutionalism can ensure that justice is served in the end. As a result, it is sometimes necessary to make a responsible decision to subject everything, even the law, to this sense of justice. 

In this light, ADM Jabalpur should be remembered as one of the Supreme Court's worst days. Aside from the legal complexities, the Court's approach and attitude lacked constitutionalism.




[1] INDIAN CONST. art.352, cl. 1

[2] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[3] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[4] INDIAN CONST. art. 352

[5] INDIAN CONST. art. 360

[6] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[7] INDIAN CONST. art.352, cl. 1

[8] INDIAN CONST. art. 359

[9] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[10] INDIAN CONST. art. 20

[11] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[12] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[13] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[14] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[15] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[16] INDIAN CONST. art. 359

[17] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[18] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[19] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[20] INDIAN CONST. art. 226

[21] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[22] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[23] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[24] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[25] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[26] INDIAN CONST. art. 226

[27] INDIAN CONST. art. 32

[28] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[29] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[30] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[31] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[32] INDIAN CONST. art. 22

[33] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[34] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[35] INDIAN CONST. art. 22

[36] INDIAN CONST. art. 22

[37] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[38] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[39] INDIAN CONST. art. 256

[40] INDIAN CONST. art. 265

[41] INDIAN CONST. art. 361, cl. 3

[42] INDIAN CONST. art. 226

[43] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[44] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[45] INDIAN CONST. art. 359

[46] INDIAN CONST. art. 358

[47] INDIAN CONST. art. 359

[48] INDIAN CONST. art. 359

[49] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[50] INDIAN CONST. art. 162

[51] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[52] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[53] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, United Nations General Assembly, 1948 (France)

[54] M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (2018)

[55] V. N Shukla, Constitution of India (2021)

[56] Daniel C. Kramer, The Courts as Guardians of Fundamental Freedom in Times of Crisis, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1980)

[57] K G Kannabiran, Creeping Decay in Institutions of Democracy, Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 1718-1720, Vol. 27, No. 33 (Aug. 15, 1992)

[58] Fali S. Nariman, Fifty Years of Human Rights Protection in India-The Record of 50 years of Constitutional Practice, Student Advocate Committee, pp. 13-26, (2013)

[59] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1 (A)

[60] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India)

[61] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[62] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[63] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[64] INDIAN CONST. art. 359, cl. 1

[65] INDIAN CONST. art. 32

[66] INDIAN CONST. art. 226

[67] Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 1943 SCC OnLine US SC 115.

[68] Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 4 SCC 373.

[69] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[70] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[71] Makhan Singh vs State Of Punjab, 1964 AIR 381, 1964 SCR (4) 797.

[72] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[73] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[74] INDIAN CONST. art. 22

[75] Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 409.

[76] Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141.

[77] INDIAN CONST. art. 32

[78] Kanu Sanyal v. Distt. Magistrate, (1974) 4 SCC 141

[79] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

[80] G. sadanandan V. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SCC 1925.

[81] Ex parte Perryman, 25 Ala. 79 (1861).

[82] A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

[83] ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521

[84] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. UOI 10 SCC 1, 2017.

[85] INDIAN CONST. art. 21

[86] INDIAN CONST. art. 14

[87] INDIAN CONST. art. 19


Let's Start With Publication