Answer

The ADM Jabalpur verdict (1976) also known as the Habeas Corpus Case marked a significant breakdown in the judiciary’s role as a protector of civil liberties during the National Emergency (1975–77). By endorsing the suspension of fundamental rights, it exposed institutional vulnerabilities. However, judicial introspection and legal course correction in the following decades reinforced constitutional morality and public trust. 

Judiciary’s Failure to Protect Rights During the Emergency

• Suspension of Fundamental Rights: During the National Emergency, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of Articles 14, 21, and 22 under Article 359(1), denying citizens access to judicial remedies.
  Eg. Over 1 lakh people were detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
• ADM Jabalpur Verdict and Denial of Habeas Corpus: In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, a 4:1 majority  ruled that no citizen could seek judicial remedy for loss of liberty.
  Eg. Habeas corpus petitions were rejected, and High Court reliefs were overturned.
• Undermining Judicial Review: The verdict weakened Article 32 and eroded the Supreme Court’s role as protector of fundamental rights.
  Eg. Even mala fide detentions could not be challenged in court.
• Suppression of Dissent and Judicial Integrity: The judiciary failed to resist executive excesses, ignoring press censorship and stifling dissent.
  Eg. The Newspapers faced pre-censorship; Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent affirming natural rights led to his supersession.
• Symbol of Judicial Surrender: ADM Jabalpur became a symbol of institutional failure and loss of public faith in the judiciary.

Judicial Introspection and Course Correction Post-Emergency

Judicial Introspection

• Recognition of Judicial Error: The Supreme Court acknowledged the ADM Jabalpur verdict as a judicial mistake.
  Eg. In 2017, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud termed it “seriously flawed” in the Puttaswamy judgment.
• Reassertion of Natural Rights: Courts re-emphasize that liberties like life and privacy are inherent, not State-conferred.
  Eg. The Puttaswamy verdict declared privacy an inalienable part of Article 21.
• Upliftment of Dissenting Voice: Justice Khanna’s lone dissent came to be celebrated as a moral compass for judicial conduct.
• Rights-Conscious Jurisprudence: Post-Emergency judgments reflect an expanded interpretation of fundamental rights.
  Eg. The courts began prioritizing human dignity, fair procedure, and proportionality in governance.

Legal and Constitutional Course Correction

• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): Redefined personal liberty under Article 21 by requiring due process through Articles 14 and 19.
  Eg. The Court mandated that restrictions on liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
• 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978): Made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable, strengthening protection of individual rights.
• K.S. Puttaswamy Judgment (2017): Overruled ADM Jabalpur and expanded the scope of fundamental rights to include privacy.
  Eg. The nine-judge bench reinforced liberty as a core constitutional value.
• Strengthened Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts now actively protect rights through Article 226, ensuring accountability in governance.
  Eg. During COVID-19, several High Courts upheld patient rights and health access against executive lapses.

The ADM Jabalpur case stands as a stark reminder of judicial failure under executive pressure. Yet, its legacy prompted enduring reforms that embedded constitutional morality into Indian jurisprudence. A vigilant, introspective, and independent judiciary remains vital to securing liberties and upholding democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF