ADM Jabalpur Case (1976) – A Dark Chapter in Indian Judiciary

The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case, also known as the Habeas Corpus Case, is one of the most controversial judgments in Indian judicial history. It tested the fundamental rights of citizens during the Emergency (1975-77) declared by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The case revolved around whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution could be suspended during an Emergency.

🔹 Background of the Case

On June 25, 1975, Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352, citing internal disturbances.
Civil liberties were curtailed, opposition leaders were jailed, and press freedom was restricted.
The government suspended fundamental rights, including Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 22 (Protection against Preventive Detention).
Habeas corpus petitions were filed in various High Courts to challenge the detentions.
The government argued that during an Emergency, courts had no power to question detentions.
The case reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide whether courts could protect the right to life and personal liberty during an Emergency.

🔹 Key Legal Issues

Whether habeas corpus (a legal remedy to challenge illegal detention) could be suspended during an Emergency.
Whether Article 21 had any significance when the President suspended fundamental rights.
Whether citizens had any recourse to the judiciary if unlawfully detained.

🔹 Supreme Court’s Verdict (1976)

The 5-judge bench (4:1 majority) ruled in favor of the government.
The majority opinion (Justices A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud, and P. N. Bhagwati) held that:
- During an Emergency, citizens do not have the right to approach courts for violation of Article 21.
- If a person is unlawfully detained, the judiciary cannot intervene.
- The Executive’s decision is final and unquestionable.
Justice H. R. Khanna was the sole dissenting judge, arguing that even during an Emergency, life and liberty are inalienable rights and cannot be taken away arbitrarily.

🔹 Impact of the Judgment

✔ Legitimized authoritarian rule by allowing the government to arrest anyone without judicial scrutiny.
✔ Weakened the judiciary by making it subordinate to the executive.
✔ Silenced political dissent, leading to widespread human rights violations.
✔ Justice H. R. Khanna resigned, as he was superseded for Chief Justice due to his dissenting opinion.

🔹 Reversal of the Judgment

The ADM Jabalpur case was overturned in 2017 by the Supreme Court in the K. S. Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy) case.
The court declared that fundamental rights, including life and liberty, cannot be suspended even during an Emergency.

🔹 Conclusion

The ADM Jabalpur case remains a black mark in Indian judicial history, highlighting the dangers of judicial subservience to executive power. However, its eventual reversal reinforced India's commitment to democracy, human rights, and constitutional supremacy.