CASE ANALYSIS

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla

Presented By Rishabh Pratap Singh BA.LL.B. 5th Semester

PETITIONERS: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR Vs. RESPONDENTS: S. S. SHUKLA ETC. ETC.

DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT 28/04/1976

BENCH:

RAY, A.N. (CJ)

BENCH:

RAY, A.N. (CJ)

KHANNA, HANS RAJ

BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

BHAGWATI, P.N.

Introduction

The case of A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla is one of the seminal cases in the history of the Indian legal system, as it is one of those cases that by highlighting the current loopholes, paved the way for further changes in the legal system. It is fascinating to remember that at the same time the case is still a black point in the justice system and the courts. The explanation for this is that, in this situation, by totally neglecting the privileges given to a person at birth, the courts failed to address and consider the plight of the people of India.

The single dissenting opinion of Justice H. R. Khanna, who was the only one who supported the superiority of fundamental rights, is also common in this case. The majority of the judges held that as long as the emergency continues, constitutional rights must remain suspended. Some claim that it was simply a selective reading of the statute, some say that it was the Centre’s apprehension of an exceedingly strong government but the truth remains that this decision is a stain on the Indian judiciary.

Facts

• On 25th June, 1975, the President in exercise of his powers which have been granted by Article 352(1) of Indian Constitution, declared that there was a grave emergency whereby security of India is threatened by the internal disturbances. • On 27th June, 1975 , by exercising the powers that are granted under Article 359 of the Constitution, it was declared that the right of any person including the foreigners to move any court in order to enforce their rights which have been granted to them under Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also all the proceedings that are pending in the court for the above mentioned rights will remain suspended during the period of proclamation of emergency which was made under Article 352 of Indian Constitution. • On 8th January, 1976 by exercising the powers granted under Article 352 of Constitution, the President passed a notification declaring that right of any person to move to any court in order to enforce the right which have been granted to them under Article 19 of the Constitution and also all the proceedings that are pending in the court for the above-mentioned right will remain suspended during the period of proclamation of emergency. • Several illegal detentions were made including the detention of some most prominent leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani who were detained without any charges and trial. • Due to this many writ petitions were filed throughout the country. Nine High Courts gave decision in favor of the detunes by laying down that even if the Article 21 cannot be enforced, still the order of detention can be challenges as it was not in compliance of the Act or was mala fide. Moreover, against these orders many appeals were filed under the Supreme Court. Issue

The issue in this case was whether a writ petition can be filed or not under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court in order to enforce the Fundamental Rights during the period of proclamation of emergency. Arguments

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER:

The State through its counsels argued that the purpose of emergency powers under the Constitution was to grant the executive broad powers whereby it can take over the implementation of laws, reason being, the interests of the State assume supreme importance during the invocation of emergency. The State further contended that the rights of the individuals to approach the Court have been curtailed under a constitutional provision i.e. Article 359 (1) and thus, it does not amount to the absence of law and order as was argued in various High Court petitions in this respect. The State also reminded the court that emergency powers laid down in the Constitution were drafted so that the economic and military security of the country will take precedence over everything else. ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS:

The respondents stated that 359 (1) prohibited the right to approach the Court under Article 32 but such prohibition does not affect the enforcement of common law as well as the statutory rights of personal liberty in the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the Presidential orders were valid only to the extent of fundamental rights and did not apply to Common Law, Natural Law, or Statutory Law. Respondents also stated that the argument of the petitioners that powers of the Executive increase due to the emergency are highly misplaced as the extent of the powers of the executive are already provided in the Constitution. It was argued that even though Article 21 laid down the Right of life and personal liberty as a fundamental right, the said Article is not the sole repository of this right. The respondents also urged the Court to consider the fact that the Executive taking over the role of the legislature goes against the basic constitutional principles that the framers had envisaged.

ANALYSIS

The judgement in this case is considered as one of the most erroneous decisions in the history of Indian democracy. The judgement has been criticised for its narrow and positivist interpretation. It has been argued that the judgement did not follow Rule of Law while considering the arguments made in this case.

The Court made the inherent and inalienable Right of Life dependent on the provisions of the Constitution. It also reduced its own power and scope of functioning while dealing with cases relating to Fundamental Rights during Emergency, giving Executive full reign of managing the affairs of the country, which is not only arbitrary but also illegal according to some.

This judgement shaped the political and judicial future of India. It showed what loopholes existed in the system and how the Executive worked its way around, so that it can arbitrarily take decisions. The senior most judge on the bench, after the Chief Justice, Justice H. R. Khanna resigned later on and the rest of the judges went on becoming Chief Justices of India. After Emergency was removed from the country, the opinions expressed in this case were reversed in cases decided by the Supreme Court. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the decision given in AK Gopalan was restored, that Article 14, 19 and 21 are not exclusive of each other and have to be read together. The scope of Article 21 has now been expanded further to include many aspects such Right to Livelihood, Right to Clean Environment etc. and it cannot be suspended under any circumstances now.

Justice Chandrachud and Bhagwati apologised for their judgements in the case. This has also affected the judgement in the comparatively recent Right to Privacy case, where Justice D Y Chandrachud reversed his opinion in the said decision after acknowledging his father’s apology in the Habeas Corpus case

JUDGEMENT

The judgement, in this case, was laid down by a 5-judge bench consisting of Justices Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati, and Khanna.

• The majority ruling was pronounced by four judges while Justice Khanna delivered a powerful dissent. • The Court held – Given the Presidential order dated 27 June 1975 no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala-fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous consideration. • The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16A (9) of MISA. • Justice H.R. Khanna in his dissent stated that invoking Article 359(1) does not take away the right of an individual to approach the Court for the implementation of statutory rights. o He added that Article 21 is not the sole repository of life and personal liberty. o He further stated that during the proclamation of emergency, Article 21 only loses the procedural power but the substantive power of this article is very fundamental and the State does not have the power to deprive any person of life and liberty without the authority of law. • There was so much political pressure during that particular hearing that this dissent cost Justice Khanna his chance of becoming the Chief Justice as he was the second in line to the Chair of CJI at that time. • Even Justice Bhagwati expressed his regret later for siding with the majority by saying that he was wrong not to uphold the cause of individual liberty.

Conclusion

The judgement in the Habeas Corpus case has been widely criticised for favouring the State instead of standing up for individual liberty. HM Seervai termed the judgement so bizarre that if Justice Khanna was arrested for giving the dissent he would not have had any remedy to secure his liberty. Immediately after the emergency ended, the Supreme Court changed its stance by giving Article 21 a permanent character in addition to linking the right provided in Article 21 with the rights provided in Articles 14 and 19. The majority judgement, in this case, is guilty of aiding and abetting the lust of power that the State apparatus at that time displayed. Commenting on the majority ruling in this case, Justice Venkatachaliah in his Khanna Memorial lecture of 2005 stated that the majority decision in the Emergency case should be “confined to the dustbin of history” and it is very hard to argue with his assessment.

The ADM Jabalpur case was overturned by the SC in the landmark Puttaswamy Case (Right to Privacy case) in 2017.