ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla is a landmark judgement in the annals of Indian constitutional history. Delivered by the Supreme Court during the national emergency declared from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, this decision has long been subject to criticism and debate. 

The case addressed the controversial issue of suspending a person’s right not to be unlawfully detained—that is, the right to habeas corpus—in the interests of state security.

Background of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla Case

The national emergency declared in India during the mid-1970s was a period of profound political, social, and legal upheaval. The emergency was imposed by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, under challenging circumstances that included internal disturbances and political instability. During this period, the executive was accorded expanded powers in an effort to maintain public order and safeguard the nation. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court was faced with cases that questioned the very balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the State.

A key aspect of the emergency period was the enactment and subsequent amendment of laws such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). The amendments introduced during the emergency allowed the State to arrest and detain individuals without trial, effectively suspending judicial review for those affected. It is within this legal and political context that ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla emerged, challenging the suspension of fundamental rights during a national crisis.

The Supreme Court was called upon to review whether the suspension of Articles 21 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution—that is, the right to personal liberty and the power of the High Courts to grant habeas corpus—could be justified during an emergency. The case did not merely tackle procedural issues but questioned the very nature and durability of fundamental rights in the face of a threat to national security.

Issues Raised in the Case

The legal questions presented before the Court in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla were both complex and multifaceted. Here are the central issues:

• Suspension of Habeas Corpus: Can a person’s right not to be unlawfully detained, particularly the right to file a writ of habeas corpus, be suspended during a national emergency in the interest of preserving state security?
• Suspension of Judicial Review: Does the suspension of Article 226, which empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, mean that individuals cannot challenge their detention or other State actions in a court during an emergency?
• Balance Between State Security and Individual Liberties: In times of emergency, to what extent can the State limit individual rights without breaching constitutional principles? Is it acceptable for the right to life and personal liberty to be temporarily overridden by the interests of national security?
• Role of the Executive During Emergencies: How far does the expanded power of the executive extend during an emergency, and what are the limits (if any) of such powers when it comes to curtailing individual freedoms?

These issues lay at the heart of the constitutional debate that ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla sought to resolve. They continue to serve as reference points in discussions about the balance between security and liberty in a democratic society.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments Presented by the Government

The majority of the bench, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, argued in favour of the measures taken by the State during the emergency. Their primary contentions included:

• State Security Supersedes Individual Rights: The government contended that in situations of grave national crisis, the preservation of State security and public order must take precedence over individual rights. The suspension of habeas corpus was seen as necessary to prevent any impediments to the swift functioning of the State machinery.
• Legal Justification through Constitutional Provisions: According to the ruling majority, the executive powers under the emergency provisions of the Indian Constitution were being exercised within a valid constitutional framework. The suspension of judicial review under Article 226, as well as the suspension of fundamental rights under Article 21, was argued to be a temporary measure justified by the need for rapid and effective governance during turbulent times.
• Uniform Application of Emergency Powers: The majority also argued that the suspension was applied uniformly, without discrimination among citizens. Whether an individual was a citizen or a foreign national, the measures were deemed necessary for national security and, as such, fell within the permissible scope of executive power during an emergency.

ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla Judgement

Majority Decision

In ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, the majority opinion was delivered by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and three other judges in a 4:1 decision. Key elements of the majority judgement included:

• Doctrine of Suspension of Rights: The majority held that during a national emergency, the constitutional provisions allowed for the suspension of certain fundamental rights. This meant that, although rights under Article 21 and Article 226 were normally inviolate, they could be lawfully curtailed in the interests of preserving national security and public order.
• Centralisation of State Power: The decision asserted that the State’s interest in maintaining order and safeguarding the nation took priority over the enforcement of individual liberties during emergencies. By suspending habeas corpus and restricting judicial review, the judiciary was seen to be enabling the State to act swiftly and effectively in times of crisis.
• Temporary Measure: The majority argued that such a suspension was inherently temporary and would only last for the duration of the emergency. Once the emergency was over, the full spectrum of fundamental rights would be restored along with normal judicial functions.

Dissenting Judgement

Justice Hans Raj Khanna, however, dissented strongly from this approach. His key observations were:

• Inalienability of Life and Liberty: Justice Khanna emphasised that life and personal liberty are pre-existing, inalienable rights. These rights are not merely bestowed by the Constitution but exist independently of it. He asserted that even during emergencies, these rights cannot be completely overridden by State action.
• Essential Role of Judicial Review: In his dissent, Justice Khanna stated that the power of the courts to issue writs of habeas corpus is a fundamental safeguard of the rule of law. To suspend this power entirely, he argued, was to grant the executive unchecked discretion, thereby paving the way for potential abuse.
• Impact on the Individual and Democratic Values: Justice Khanna maintained that any curtailment of judicial review unbalances the delicate relationship between the State and its citizens. For a democracy that values freedom and individual rights, it is essential that the courts remain empowered to check the executive—even in times of crisis.

Overruling of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla Judgement and Its Impact

The doctrinal foundations of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla were ultimately challenged and overruled on the grounds concerning the nature of fundamental rights. In a later, comprehensive judgement, the Supreme Court clarified that:

• Inherent, Natural Rights: Life and personal liberty are intrinsic, natural rights that pre-exist the Constitution. They are not conferred by the State but are inherent to every individual. The overruling judgement emphasised that any argument suggesting otherwise was contrary to both legal doctrine and the basic principles of human dignity.
• Essential Safeguard of Judicial Review: The overruling reaffirmed that the power to issue writs of habeas corpus is indispensable for maintaining the rule of law. Even in times of emergency, judicial oversight must remain to protect citizens from arbitrary detention and State excesses. This reversal served as a corrective measure, reinforcing that no executive power should ever completely override the sanctity of individual liberty.
• Balancing Acts in a Democracy: The overruling highlighted the importance of balancing the State’s need for effective control with the protection of individual rights. It underscored that while certain measures can be temporarily imposed during crises, they must not become permanent instruments that weaken the democratic framework of the nation.

The evolution from the doctrine laid down in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla to its overruling demonstrates the dynamic nature of constitutional law in India. It reflects an ongoing commitment to ensuring that even in extraordinary circumstances, the principles of justice and the rule of law prevail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla represents one of the most controversial and debated judgements in Indian history. The case raised profound questions about the extent to which individual rights can be suspended during emergencies for the sake of national security. While the majority decision allowed for a temporary suspension of habeas corpus and curtailed judicial review, it did so at the cost of compromising the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty.

The dissenting view, as articulated by Justice Hans Raj Khanna, has come to be seen as both visionary and necessary. His insistence on the non-derogable nature of fundamental rights and the essential role of judicial review has resonated deeply with later judgements, particularly the overruling of this doctrine in favour of recognising the inalienable rights of individuals.

This article was contributed by Adrita Dey, a student at Calcutta University, Department of Law.