A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case), 1976, 2 SCC 521
FACTS IN BRIEF
On June 25th, 1975, the President, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of
Articles 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed
whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. On June 27th, 1975, in exercise of
powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 359, the President declared that the right of any person
including a foreigner to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article
21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the
abovementioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamations of
emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3rd, 1971 and on June
25th, 1975, were in force. The Presidential Order of June 27, 1975, further stated that the same shall be in
addition to and not in derogation of any order made before the date of the aforesaid order under clause
(1) of Article 359 of the Constitution.
On January 8th, 1976, there was a notification passed in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of
Article 359 of the Constitution, whereby the President declared that the right of any person to move any
to court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution and all proceedings
pending in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights would remain suspended for the
period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the
Constitution on December 3rd, 1971, and on June 25th, 1975, were in force. Several illegal detentions
were thereupon made across the country, pursuant to which various writ petitions were filed throughout
the country. Nine High Courts gave decision in favour of detunes, holding that that though Article 21
cannot be enforced, yet the order of detention was open to challenge on other grounds, such as that the
order passed was not in compliance with the Act or was mala fide. Against these orders, many appeals were
filed before the Supreme Court. Disposing of all the appeals together, the Supreme Court set aside that the
decisions of the High Courts, which had held the declaration and the subsequent detentions as illegal and
upheld the declaration and suspension of the said rights.
ARGUMENTS
Before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General pleaded that Article 21 of the
Constitution, fundamental right which provides for security of life and liberty of any person, had been
suspended and therefore, the suspension of that Article meant that the detenu had no remedy even
against an illegal detention, i.e. all the remedy to secure life and personal freedom ended with the
suspension of Article 21. The detunes agued that they had a right to seek remedy under Article 226
(Power of HC to issue Writs) and therefore a remedy against illegal detention was available to them
despite the suspension of Article 21 as the remedy under Article 226, which provided for enforcing any
other legal right, was not suspended by the Presidential Order.
JUDGMENTS
Marking the black day of Indian legal history, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments
of the Respondents and held that Article 21 of the Constitution was the sole repository of right to life and
liberty and therefore, the suspension of it implied that all the remedies protecting this right under any
Other laws shall also be suspended. The Court while construing Article 21 as the sole repository of life and
personal liberty denied all available remedies to the detenus on any ground that any challenge to the
detention order for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 could not be done
on account of the presidential order suspending it being in force. The majority further held that even the
order of detention could not be challenged even on any other ground, even if the detention order was
passed mala fide, rendering the detenu without any remedy even against an illegal detention. Therefore,
the Court declared, “in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27th, 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, 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, is illegal, is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based
on extraneous considerations”, closing its doors to any sort of relief whatsoever to any person suffering
from illegal detention.
CONCLUSION
Dubbed as “a scar on Indian Judiciary”, the judgment exposed the dangers facing
the Constitution (read total anarchy) if the judicial wing was unwilling to stand firm and intolerant to
violation of the constitutional mandate. However, Justice Khanna, who gave the dissenting judgment, was
praised for his integrity in his duty to deliver justice. Later, when the next government came in power, the
Constitution was amended, whereby it was provided that Article 21 could not be suspended, even in
case of an emergency. Thus, the reoccurrence of such a situation has been amended by a Constitutional
An amendment states that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be suspended in any situation.
Youtube facebook whatsapp web weather translate google amazon gmail google translate Instagram cricbuzz traductor Hotmail restaurants satta king tiempo twitter googel maps Yandex Sarkari result clima hotels fb yahoo maps chatgpt yahoo mail weather tomorrow Netflix roblox nba wordle tradutor livescore premier league ibomma speed test canva pintrest outlook Instagram login omegle flipkart myntra paypal paytm Alibaba ebay lottery sambad linkedin tiktok shein bbc news real madrid gmail login Walmart ikea cricket snaptik flashscore English to hindi twitch google scholar Barcelona Sarkari Naukri matrimonial shadi lgbtq third gender woman children Advocate barrister vakil supreme court high court commissioner exams ll.b ll.m ugc net law ph.d. m.b.a. graduation degree certificate school additional session judge civil judge justice jurists crime criminology punishment capital sentence death warrant fine constitution of india criminal procedure code civil procedure code evidence act sale of goods act arbitration act all india bar exam lower judiciary higher judiciary additional district attorney contract act amendment act u.s. constitution Canada p r section article schedule judgment vacancy post Porsche louis Vuitton chanel Gucci Hermes dior cartier rolex titan tiffany & co Ferrari estee lauder coach lancome burberry prada omega yves saint Laurent Lamborghini ray-ban Armani Moncler tata reliance Givenchy celine Bentley tag Heuer sk-II can cleef & arpels bulgari Shangri-la lao feng xiang dabur baidyanath cipla birla monte carlo loewe rolls-royce bottega-veneta jaege-leCoulture Maserati valentino dolce & gabbana Salvatore Ferragamo sulwhasso tom ford Maruti Suzuki Hyundai kia intercontinental Tissot aston martin ysl beauty fendi Versace kenzo la mer longines gold price sensex human rights pollution