ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

Last updated
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case nameAdditional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
CitationAIR 1976 SC 1207
Case history
Subsequent actionOverruled by Puttuswamy v. Union of India
Court membership
Judges sitting A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Hans Raj Khanna, Y.V. Chandrachud and P. N. Bhagwati
Case opinions
Decision byA.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati and Hans Raj Khanna [1]
ConcurrenceA.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud and P. N. Bhagwati
DissentHans Raj Khanna
Laws applied
Overruled by
Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2017)

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla was a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to the suspension of Articles 21 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in the event of a National Emergency. This controversial judgment of P.N. Bhagwati, decreed during the emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus ) can be suspended in the interest of the State. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance of attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. Going against the previous decisions of High Courts, the bench which included P. N. Bhagwati concluded by a majority 4:1 in favour of the then Indira Gandhi government while only Justice Hans Raj Khanna was opposed to it. Bhagwati openly praised Indira Gandhi during the Emergency period, later criticized her when Janata Party-led government was formed and again backed Gandhi when she got re-elected to form government in 1980. Bhagwati was criticized for these change of stands, favouring the ruling government, which were deemed as to have been taken to better his career prospects. [2] Bhagwati later in 2011 agreed with popular opinion that this judgement was short-sighted and apologised. [3] [2]

Contents

Dissent

Justice Hans Raj Khanna was the sole dissenter among the five judges. In retaliation for his dissent, he was later overlooked during the appointment of the Chief Justice. [4]

Reception

According to Ajay Kumar of Firstpost, "the judgment has been viewed as a stain on the legacy of the court for many years. The ratio decidendi (rationale behind the judgment) that all rights under our Constitution are a positive creation of law rather than merely recognised greatly increases the power of the State to do what it likes with them."

Overruled

The ADM Jabalpur case was overruled on the doctrinal grounds concerning the rights by the Puttaswamy v. Union of India delivered by a nine judge, constitutional bench of the Supreme court. At the paragraph 119 of the majority opinion the Court had ruled: [4]

"The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. These rights are, as recognised in Kesavananda Bharati, primordial rights. They constitute rights under natural law.

The human element in the life of the individual is integrally founded on the sanctity of life. Dignity is associated with liberty and freedom. No civilised state can contemplate an encroachment upon life and personal liberty without the authority of law.

"Neither life nor liberty are bounties conferred by the State nor does the Constitution create these rights.

"The right to life has existed even before the advent of the Constitution. In recognising the right, the Constitution does not become the sole repository of the right. It would be preposterous to suggest that a democratic Constitution without a Bill of Rights would leave individuals governed by the State without either the existence of the right to live or the means of enforcement of the right. The right to life being inalienable to each individual, it existed prior to the Constitution and continued in force under Article of the Constitution.

"Justice Khanna was clearly right in holding that the recognition of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution does not denude the existence of that right, apart from it nor can there be a fatuous assumption that in adopting the Constitution the people of India surrendered the most precious aspect of the human persona, namely, life, liberty and freedom to the State on whose mercy these rights would depend. Such a construct is contrary to the basic foundation of the rule of law which imposes restraints upon the powers vested in the modern state when it deals with the liberties of the individual.

"The power of the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a precious and undeniable feature of the rule of law." [4]

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court order the person's custodian to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

Part XVIII of the Constitution of India allows for a constitutional setup that can be proclaimed by the President of India as a state of emergency, when the consultant group perceives and warns against grave threats to the nation from internal and external sources or from financial situations of crisis. Under Article 352 of the Indian constitution, upon the advice of the cabinet of ministers, the President can overrule many provisions of the constitution, which guarantee fundamental rights to the citizens of India and acts governing devolution of powers to the states which form the federation. In the history of independent India, such a state of emergency has been declared three times.

  1. The first instance was between 26 October 1962 to 21 November 1962 during the India-China war, when "the security of India" was declared as being "threatened by external aggression".
  2. The second instance was between 3 and 17 December 1971, which was originally proclaimed during the Indo-Pakistan war.
  3. The third proclamation between 25 June 1975 to January 1977 was under controversial circumstances of political instability under Indira Gandhi's premiership, when emergency was declared on the basis of "internal disturbances". The proclamation immediately followed a ruling in the Allahabad High Court, that voided the Prime Minister's election from Rae Bareli in the 1971 Indian general election. She was also prohibited from contesting election for next 6 years, challenging her legitimacy to continue in her post. Indira Gandhi, instead recommended to the then president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to proclaim a state of emergency to strengthen her hand.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nani Palkhivala</span> Great Indian jurist and economist

Nanabhoy "Nani" Ardeshir Palkhivala was an Indian lawyer and jurist. Being lead counsel in cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala, I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs., Minerva Mills v. Union of India garnered him international recognition and cemented his reputation as one of India’s most eminent advocates.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mirza Hameedullah Beg</span> 15th Chief Justice of India

Mirza Hameedullah Beg was the 15th Chief Justice of India, serving from January 1977 to February 1978.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Y. V. Chandrachud</span> 16th Chief Justice Of India

Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud was an Indian jurist who served as the 16th Chief Justice of India, serving from 22 February 1978 until 11 July 1985. Born in Pune in the Bombay Presidency, he was first appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of India on 28 August 1972 and is the longest-serving Chief Justice in India's history at 7 years and 4 months. His nickname was Iron Hands after his well-regarded unwillingness to let anything slip past him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hans Raj Khanna</span> Indian judge (1912–2008)

Hans Raj Khanna was an Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and attempted to uphold civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976. He entered the Indian judiciary in 1952 as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in 1971 where he continued till his resignation in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud</span> Chief Justice of India

Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is an Indian jurist, who is the 50th and current chief justice of India serving since November 2022. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in May 2016. He has also previously served as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 2013 to 2016 and as a judge of the Bombay High Court from 2000 to 2013. He is also a former executive chairperson (ex officio) of the National Legal Services Authority.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus. Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the Constitution of India</span> Set of guidelines to the nation and the Constitution of India

Beohar Rammanohar Sinha presents the principles of the Constitution and indicates the sources of its authority. The preamble is based on the Objectives Resolution, which was moved in the Constituent Assembly by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946 accepted on 22 January 1947 and adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, coming into force on 26 January 1950, celebrated as the Republic Day of India, and was initially drafted by V. K. Krishna Menon. Menon explicitly did not include the words "socialist" or "secular", after consultation with Nehru; the text was later amended during the Indian emergency by Indira Gandhi where the words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" were added.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">P. N. Bhagwati</span> 17th Chief Justice of India

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati was the 17th Chief Justice of India, serving from 12 July 1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. He introduced the concepts of public interest litigation and absolute liability in India, and for this reason is held, along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a pioneer of judicial activism in the country. He is the longest-served supreme court judge in India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. N. Ray</span> 14th Chief Justice of India

Ajit Nath Ray was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India from 25 April 1973 till his retirement on 28 January 1977.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

<i>Right to Privacy verdict</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanjiv Khanna</span> Indian judge (born 1960)

Sanjiv Khanna is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is a former judge of Delhi High Court, also a position held by his father Dev Raj Khanna. Also, he is the ex officio executive chairman of National Legal Services Authority. He is in line to become the 51st Chief Justice of India.

<i>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India</i> Court case of India

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, and established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, holding that a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of them. Once again overruling A. K. Gopalan, the Court in this case held that a 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

<i>Ujjawal v. State of Haryana</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

References

  1. "Additional District Magistrate, ... Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976".
  2. 1 2 Jayan, Shanmugham D; Sudheesh, Raghul (16 September 2011). "A Chief Justice of India says "I am sorry" but 30 years too late". First Post. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  3. "Interview with Justice Bhagwati (2011)". Video on www.myLaw.net. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  4. 1 2 3 "Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place". Firstpost. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 31 December 2021.

Sources