The ADM Jabalpur verdict remains a critical cautionary tale, 50 years after the declaration of the Emergency in 1975.

• Its significance is highlighted by its formal overruling in 2017 by the Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy case, emphasizing the enduring lessons from that period.

Background

• Powers of Judiciary: The Judiciary in India has been vested with special powers to act as a safeguard against executive and legislative overreach. 
• Checks and Balances: This constitutional design ensures the protection of citizens’ rights and upholds the principle of checks and balances in a democratic framework.
• Article 32: Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is often referred to as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

ADM Jabalpur Case

• Trigger for the Case: The case was triggered by the declaration of a National Emergency in 1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing “internal disturbances.” This unprecedented move led to severe curtailment of civil liberties.
• Suspension of Rights: During the Emergency, Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before law), 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) were suspended using Article 359(1) of the Constitution.
• Mass Detentions and Censorship: This period saw thousands of individuals detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), and press freedom was severely curtailed.
• High Court Relief: Despite the suspension of fundamental rights, several High Courts courageously granted relief to detainees by exercising their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• Government Appeal: The Union Government challenged these High Court decisions in the Supreme Court, leading to the infamous ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case
• Legal Question: Can a person detained during an Emergency seek remedy under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) when it is suspended? Is a habeas corpus petition maintainable during an Emergency?

Supreme Court Verdict (1976)

• Majority Opinion (4:1): Chief Justice A.N. Ray and Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati held that no remedy was available for violations of the right to life or liberty during an Emergency. Even detentions made in bad faith or illegally could not be challenged.
• Rationale: The majority believed that with Article 21 suspended, the State’s power was supreme, and individuals had no locus standi (right to appear in court) to seek judicial recourse for fundamental rights.
• Dissenting Opinion: Justice H.R. Khanna famously dissented, asserting that life and liberty are natural rights, not merely created by the Constitution. 
  • He famously stated that “Even in the absence of Article 21, the state cannot deprive… without law,” upholding the rule of law as central to democracy. His principled stand ultimately cost him the elevation to Chief Justice of India.
• Aftermath and Reactions: The Emergency ended in 1977, and the ADM Jabalpur verdict became a stark symbol of judicial surrender. 
  • Conversely, Justice Khanna’s lone dissent gained immense moral standing, now recognized as a beacon for fundamental rights. 
  • The verdict is widely criticized as a dark chapter in Indian judicial history, highlighting the judiciary’s failure to protect civil liberties during a national crisis.
  • Its overruling in the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy case explicitly validated Justice Khanna’s foresight.

Constitutional and Judicial Redemption Post-Emergency

• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): The landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978) significantly expanded the scope of Article 21, linking it intrinsically with Articles 14 and 19.
  • It mandated that laws depriving life or liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” ushering in a new era of substantive due process.
• 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978): The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) provided crucial legal reinforcement, making Articles 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) non-suspendable even during an Emergency. This directly enshrined Justice H.R. Khanna’s position into the Constitution.
• K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment (2017): A nine-judge bench in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) definitively overruled the ADM Jabalpur judgment. 
  • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud famously called the original verdict “seriously flawed,” recognizing privacy and liberty as natural and inalienable rights inherent to human existence.

Conclusion

The ADM Jabalpur case serves as a vital case study in judicial accountability, highlighting the profound consequences when the judiciary falters in its role as a protector of rights.  It underscores the enduring importance of dissent and courage in the judiciary, particularly in safeguarding fundamental liberties during times of crisis

DOWNLOAD PDF