The peculiar case of ADM Jabalpur Vs. Shivkant Shukla

SYNOPSIS

1. INTRODUCTION:
   1. To mark the 44th anniversary of the landmark judgement of ADM Jabalpur, this article revisits the case.
   2. The article also talks about Justice H.R. Khanna, who has ben regarded as the brave, unsung hero of the India Justice system.
   3. The inception of this case can be traced back to the judgement of Allahabad High court in another landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain.
   4. The article discusses the facts and background of the case at length.
2. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS:
   1. One of the main contention raised by the petitioners was that the sole purpose and aim of the emergency provision under the constitution is that they guarantee special powers to the Executive  to hold complete discretion over the implementation of the laws and rights of the country.
   2. It was argued by the respondents that the objective of Article 359(1) was to remove restriction which would be places on the power of legislature, so as to enable them to make laws freely during period of emergency in violation of fundamental rights as specified under the Presidential order.
   3. Further arguments have also been stated and analyzed in the article.
3. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:
   1. In a majority judgement of 4:1, the court held that no person has the locus standi to move to High Court under Article 226 in regard to illegal detention during emergency.
4. THE UNSUNG HERO- JUSTICE H.R. KHANNA:
   1. Justice Khanna was the lone dissenter and held that life and liberty cannot be at the mercy of executive and the rule of law does not allow the government to detain an individual without a trial.
   2. Justice Khanna held that a citizen's right to approach the Court could not be suspended even during the emergency period.
   3. This move costed him his Chief Justiceship.
5. CONCLUSION:
   1. ADM Jabalpur was overruled by the landmark judgement of 2017, K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India.
   2. The Bench in Puttuswamy judgment held that ADM Jabalpur was a deeply flawed judgment.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE:

It has been 44 years since the landmark judgement of ADM Jabalapur v. Shivkant Shukla[1] was delivered. The inception of this case can be traced back to the judgement of Allahabad High court in another landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain.[2] In the latter case, the petitioner had challenged the election of Indira Gandhi and her subsequent victory in the constituency of Rae Bareli, UP. Justice Sinha of the Allahabad High Court held that Indira Gandhi had indulged in wrongful practices and hence, declared her election void. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which only granted her a conditional stay. Fearful that she would lose her position as the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi requested the then President Fakruddin Ali Ahmad to declare emergency under Article 352 (1). The President, by virtue of his powers as given by Article 359 (suspension of the enforcement of fundamental rights during emergencies), issued a presidential order for suspending the rights of citizens to approach the courts for enforcement of their fundamental rights as under Article 21.

The government stated that the emergency had been imposed, “a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances”.

During this period of emergency, anyone who was considered to be a political threat to the government and its authorities, was taken into custody without any trial under the pretext of Preventive Detention. This saw the arrest of some of the most significant leaders from the opposition including Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Jay Prakash Narayan and many more. Several petitions were filed in High Courts challenging the detainment. Most of the petitions compelled Indira Gandhi to release the detainees. One such petition became the landmark judgment of ADM Jabalpur. It is also called the Habeas Corpus Case because the writ of Habeas corpus is filed in the High Court or Supreme Court in cases of illegal detention. This case is also referred to as the “Darkest Hour” of the Indian judiciary as it curtailed the most important facet of the Indian Constitution, fundamental rights.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS:

One of the main contention raised by the petitioners was that the sole purpose and aim of the emergency provision under the constitution is that they guarantee special powers to the Executive  to hold complete discretion over the implementation of the laws and rights of the country. The reason behind this was that during an emergency the considerations of the state assume supreme importance.[3]

Further the petitioners also contended that “The state does not release a detune despite the opinion of the advisory board that there is no sufficient cause for his detention and thus keeps him in detention in fragrant violation of the provisions of article 22, no habeas corpus petition would be maintainable and this would be so even though article 22 itself is a fundamental right.” Suspending the rights of a person to move to court for the enforcement of his right to life and liberty was done under constitutional provision and therefore it cannot be said that the resulting situation would mean the absence of the rule of the law.They highlighted the fact that Emergency provisions in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution including Article 358, Article 359(1) and Article 359(1A) are constitutional necessities and imperatives of the Constitution as the military and economic security of the nation preceded everything else.

The validity of the law as stated in the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of violating a fundamental right which was suspended by the above-mentioned Article in the first place.[4]

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENTS:

It was argued that the objective of Article 359(1) was to remove restriction which would be places on the power of legislature, so as to enable them to make laws freely during period of emergency in violation of fundamental rights as specified under the Presidential order. It is stated that the main aim of Article 359) was to prohibit moving to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for enforcement of certain rights. This prohibition by law has no effect on the enforcement of common law and statutory rights of personal liberty in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It was argued that the executive can act in favor or against the citizens, only to the extent set by valid laws. Article 352 or the Proclamation of Emergency, at no point, increases the scope of the Executive Powers of the State from what is enshrined under Article 162 of the Constitution and nothing more.

Finally, it was arguedthat Preamble to the constitution speaks of a Sovereign, Democratic Republic and therefore, the Executive which is subordinate to the Legislature cannot act to the prejudice of the citizen save to the extent permitted by laws validly made by the legislature which is the chosen representative of the people.[5]

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

On 28th April, 1976 the Apex Court of the country, in4:1 judgement held that “In view of the Presidential order dated 27 June 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 or 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 or is illegal or is vitiated by mala-fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous consideration.”[6] This basically meant that the fundamental rights of citizens, including the Right to Life as under Article 21, will remain suspended during National Emergency.

THE UNSUNG HERO- JUSTICE H.R. KHANNA:

When one talks about ADM Jabalpur case, they cannot possibly overlook the unsung hero, that is, Justice H.R. Khanna. In the landmark judgement, Justice Khanna was the lone dissenter and held that life and liberty cannot be at the mercy of executive and the rule of law does not allow the government to detain an individual without a trial. Justice Khanna ultimately held that a citizen's right to approach the Court could not be suspended even during the emergency period. He has been hailed as a hero as he was the only one who upheld his duty as served upon him by the constitution. His views were not just significant because of its pro-liberty approach but also because of the circumstances in which it was delivered. In the period of National Emergency, which saw several human rights violation and when the most elite judges of our country were also scared to deliver judgements against the government, Justice Khanna had emerged as a leader, upholding the fundamental right of the citizens. In an article which was written right after the judgement was delivered, titled “Fading Hope in India”, the New York Times  had rightly written that, “If India ever finds a way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H.R. Khanna of the Supreme Court”

Justice Khanna had written in his biography that his dissent in ADM Jabalpur had not just costed him his Chief Justiceship, which was given to Justice M.H. Beg, who was younger to him in seniority, but the attitude of government towards him had also changed. He was no more invited to official dinners, where other judges were invited.

His fearless dissent at a time like the Emergency made him immortal and he gained the respect of people across the world. Shri Nani Palkhivala rightly said that “for a man of the stature of Justice Khanna, the Chief Justiceship of India could have added nothing.”

CONCLUSION:

The case ADM Jabalpur has become a landmark judgement for all the wrong reasons. In an interview, Judge P.N. Bhagwati admited that the decision of the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur was incorrect and pleads guilty to the same thing. The reason for joining the majority (A. Ray, Y. V. Chandrachud and H.H. Beg) in this case was that he was persuaded by his colleagues and admitted that it was an act of weakness on his part. He also said that “it was against my conscience; this judgment is not the justice of Bhagwati.”[7]

This judgement which curtailed the fundamental rights of citizens during the period of emergency was overruled by the landmark judgement of 2017, K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India,[8] also known as the right to privacy judgment.

One very interesting fact to be noted is that while Justice Y.V. Chandrachud was a part of the bench in ADM Jabalpur case, his son Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was part of the bench in K.S. Puttuswamy judgment. The latter had overruled the former case. The Bench in Puttuswamy judgment held that ADM Jabalpur was a deeply flawed judgment.

While the ADM Jabalpur case has been held to be per in curium, it serves as a lesson to the Indian Justice system.

• [1](1976) 2 SCC 521