ADM(Additional District Magistrate) Jabalpur

v.

Shivakant Shukla 

The ADM Jabalpur case (Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 1976), also known as the Habeas Corpus case, came at the height of the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (1975–77). The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a citizen could approach the courts to enforce their fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) when Emergency was proclaimed and the government had suspended the enforcement of fundamental rights.

In a 4:1 majority, the Court infamously held that during the Emergency, citizens had no right to seek relief for illegal detention. In other words, the majority opinion declared that even if the State unlawfully detained a person, the courts could not intervene because the right to life and liberty itself was suspended. This judgment gave sweeping powers to the Executive and was seen as judicial surrender in the face of authoritarianism.

Justice HR Khanna stood alone, delivering a historic dissent. He held that the right to life and liberty is not granted by the Constitution but is inherent in human existence itself, and therefore cannot be taken away even during an Emergency. His words became immortal in Indian constitutional history, symbolizing the moral authority of the judiciary over raw political power.

Though criticized as a “dark chapter” in judicial history, the ADM Jabalpur decision had far-reaching consequences. It highlighted the dangers of excessive executive power, reinforced the need for an independent judiciary, and ultimately led to important constitutional developments. The 44th Amendment of 1978 ensured that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 cannot be suspended even during an Emergency—thus vindicating Justice Khanna’s dissent.

In the years that followed, the Supreme Court itself acknowledged the mistake. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy case, 2017), the Court explicitly overruled ADM Jabalpur, calling it “seriously flawed” and paying tribute to Justice Khanna’s lone dissent as the true constitutional position.

Background of the Case

The background and history of the ADM Jabalpur case can be understood through the following timeline:

• June 12, 1975 – In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 875), Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha held Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practices. Her election to the Lok Sabha was declared void, disqualifying her from contesting elections or holding office for six years. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted her a conditional stay.
• June 26, 1975 – On Indira Gandhi’s request, President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed a national Emergency under Article 352(2), citing “internal disturbances” as a threat to India’s security.
• June 27, 1975 – By virtue of Article 359(1), citizens and foreigners were barred from moving courts to enforce fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22. All pending cases relating to these rights were also suspended for the duration of the Emergency.
• June 29, 1975 – This suspension was extended to Jammu and Kashmir.
• The immediate effect was the use of preventive detention laws, notably the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. Many opposition leaders were arrested and detained indefinitely as they were deemed “political threats” to Indira Gandhi’s government.
• A series of amendments followed between June 1975 and January 1976:
• Section 16A and Section 18 were inserted into MISA.
• October 27, 1975 – Clauses (8) and (9) added to Section 16A through Ordinance 16 of 1975, allowed detention without disclosure of reasons.
• November 16, 1975 – Ordinance 22 of 1975 inserted Clause 2A into Section 16, tightening detention powers further.

The cumulative effect was the indefinite preventive detention of several prominent opposition leaders without sufficient justification. Many detainees challenged their detention orders in High Courts across India — most of which ruled in their favor, declaring unlawful detentions invalid. The Government, dissatisfied with these outcomes, appealed to the Supreme Court in what became the landmark case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976).

Issue Involved

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable for enforcing the right to personal liberty under Article 21, during the operation of a Presidential Order suspending fundamental rights under Article 359(1).

Arguments

On behalf of the Petitioners (Government):

• During an Emergency, state considerations are paramount; executive power must be absolute.
• Even if an Advisory Board found no valid grounds for detention, the State was not bound to release detainees.
• Since the President had suspended enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22, no writ of habeas corpus could be entertained.
• Suspension of rights under Articles 358 and 359 was a constitutional mandate; thus, preventive detention was legally justified.

On behalf of the Respondents (Detainees):

• Article 359(1) merely suspended enforcement of fundamental rights through Article 32, not through Article 226 of the High Courts.
• Natural rights, common law rights, and statutory rights to liberty remained intact even during Emergency.
• Article 21 is not the sole source of life and liberty; these rights exist independently of the Constitution.
• Preventive detention under MISA must still satisfy the conditions under Section 3 of the Act; arbitrary or mala fide detention was unlawful.
• The Preamble’s democratic character meant that the Executive could not function above the Legislature or beyond the Constitution.

Final Judgment (Majority: 4–1, delivered on 28th April 1976)

A.N. Ray C.J., M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati JJ.

• Held that no person had locus standi to move any writ petition (including habeas corpus) in High Courts under Article 226 for challenging preventive detention during Emergency.
• Upheld the constitutional validity of MISA amendments, including Section 16A(9), which denied detainees disclosure of grounds of detention.
• Clarified distinction between:
• Article 358 (automatically suspends Article 19 during Emergency).
• Article 359 (suspends enforcement of specified rights through Presidential order).
• Asserted that Article 21 is the sole repository of life and liberty, and once suspended, courts had no power of review.
• Stated that judicial review during Emergency was limited, and the Basic Structure doctrine could not override express Emergency provisions.

Dissenting Judgment (Justice H.R. Khanna)

Justice Khanna’s lone dissent became historic:

• Declared that life and liberty are inherent to human existence; even if Article 21 is suspended, the State cannot deprive individuals of liberty without lawful authority.
• Observed: “What is at stake is the rule of law… whether the law speaking through the authority of the Court shall be silenced and rendered mute.”
• Emphasized that without recognition of life and liberty, society collapses into lawlessness.
• Asserted that suspension of Article 21 affects only procedural enforcement, not the substantive existence of life and liberty rights.

Significance of the Judgment

• The majority judgment is remembered as a dark chapter in Indian constitutional history, symbolizing judicial surrender to executive excesses.
• Justice Khanna’s dissent immortalized the principle that life and liberty are beyond the Constitution itself — they are part of natural law.
• The case triggered critical reforms:
• 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) ensured that Article 21 and 22 cannot be suspended even during Emergency.
• In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur, acknowledging it as “seriously flawed” and hailing Justice Khanna’s dissent as the true constitutional position.

Thus, while ADM Jabalpur is often cited as an example of judicial failure, it also stands as a turning point that strengthened Indian democracy, embedding the value of courageous dissent into constitutional culture.

Share this News