ADM Jabalpur: The top court's fall and redemption

Fifty years after the Emergency, the memory of that period continues to haunt the conscience of India's constitutional democracy. Central to that collective reckoning is the Supreme Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case in 1976, famously dubbed the 'Habeas Corpus case'.
Also Read: HC orders judicial inquiry into construction of 17 illegal buildings in Shil Daighar
At a time when the judiciary was expected to act as the guardian of civil liberties, the apex court chose to become an instrument of the executive, handing down a verdict that effectively sanctioned state authoritarianism. The judgment is a cautionary tale of how legal formalism and deference to executive authority can gut the soul of a liberal constitutional democracy.
Also Read: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to alleged 'dunki' agent
HT takes a look at the legal, political and moral dimensions of the case, the dissent that stood tall against the tide, and the decades-long journey of constitutional redemption that culminated in its formal overruling in 2017.
The context
On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances. Civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents jailed, and press freedom muzzled. The government invoked Article 359(1), issuing a presidential order suspending the right of citizens to move courts for the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 -- rights guaranteeing equality, life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest.
Also Read: Chhota Shakeel aide discharged from 2022 extortion case due to lack of evidence
Against this backdrop, several high courts granted relief to detainees under Article 226, questioning the legality of their arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The Union government challenged these orders, leading to the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla. The pivotal legal issue was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy via habeas corpus (essentially challenge detention) when the enforcement of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) stood suspended.
In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that no individual had the locus standi to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The majority judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India AN Ray and concurred with by justices MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the right to life and personal liberty non-justiciable.
Even if a detention was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide, the courts had no authority to intervene, stated the majority opinion, asserting that rights existed only insofar as the Constitution recognised and enforced them. This effectively meant that during the Emergency, the State could deprive a person of their liberty or even life without any legal recourse.
The verdict was an endorsement of unchecked executive power. It subordinated the judiciary to the will of the government, silenced legal dissent, and undermined the foundational promise of the Constitution: That liberty is not at the mercy of the State.
The dissent
The lone dissent came from justice HR Khanna, who rejected the majority's formalism and asserted that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inherent natural right. Drawing from natural law and common law traditions, justice Khanna argued that certain rights are so intrinsic to human dignity that they transcend constitutional text. His judgment famously stated, 'Even in the absence of Article 21, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.'
Justice Khanna underscored that the Constitution did not create the right to life and liberty; it merely recognised it. As he eloquently put it: 'Rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.' This means that the executive branch cannot misuse its power and claim protection simply because the President has issued a proclamation. Therefore, he held, even when fundamental rights are suspended by a presidential order, judges still have the authority to review the actions of the executive to ensure they are lawful and not arbitrary.
His principled stand cost him the Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by justice Beg despite being senior.
The ADM Jabalpur judgment sparked outrage among jurists, scholars, and civil society. It came to symbolise judicial abdication, a moment when the Supreme Court failed in its primary duty to act as a bulwark against executive excess. Though the Emergency was lifted in 1977 and the Janata Party came to power, the damage had been done. Yet, the spirit of justice Khanna's dissent lived on, influencing a more expansive and liberal interpretation of rights in the years to come.
Reversal and redemption
The judicial journey from ADM Jabalpur to KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) is one of moral and constitutional redemption. It began with Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court overturned the narrow reading of Article 21 established in AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950) which held that each fundamental right operates independently and should therefore be interpreted in isolation. The Maneka Gandhi ruling declared that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, creating a triadic relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 – as against the previous concept of fundamental rights existing in separate silos. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is 'not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.' In many ways, the Maneka Gandhi case was the jurisprudential response to ADM Jabalpur's moral collapse, reasserting the judiciary's role in preserving dignity and fairness.
That trajectory culminated in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict. In KS Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench in the top court finally buried ADM Jabalpur. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud explicitly overruled the majority view in his father's judgment in ADM Jabalpur. He stated: 'The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. They constitute rights under natural law.' It was a rare and poignant moment of judicial introspection.
In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, the Supreme Court again revisited ADM Jabalpur. A bench headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, while ruling on police delays in filing chargesheets, emphasised that the right to liberty remains enforceable even in emergencies. The court noted that the 'retrograde steps' taken in ADM Jabalpur were immediately remedied by the 44th Amendment and formally overruled by Puttaswamy.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 responded to the ADM Jabalpur verdict by inserting a critical safeguard -- even during an Emergency, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. This was Parliament's way of ensuring that the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur would not be repeated. It codified what justice Khanna had asserted all along – that certain rights are non-negotiable.
The story of ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla is not just about a flawed judgment but stands as a grim reminder of what happens when courts choose executive convenience over constitutional conscience. It is about the fragility of constitutional rights, the dangers of judicial timidity and the enduring value of dissent. It is a crucial narrative that reveals about a moment when the rule of law bent under pressure, and how that breach was slowly repaired through principled jurisprudence and legislative intervention.
Justice Khanna's dissent, once sidelined, now occupies a place of honour in India's constitutional canon. It reminds us that in times of crisis, the judiciary must rise above expediency and remain faithful to the moral foundations of the Constitution.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scroll.in

27 minutes ago

• Scroll.in

Calcutta HC restraints Bengal from paying monthly stipend to sacked non-teaching staff

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the West Bengal government to stop paying monthly stipends to a group of non-teaching staff who had been sacked after the Supreme Court in April found irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process, Live Law reported. On June 9, Justice Amrita Sinha had reserved the judgement in the matter but had stayed the state government's plan to provide monthly stipends of Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000 to the persons. In its Friday order, the court reinforced that restriction, prohibiting such payments till at least September 26. Sinha issued the direction on a writ petition challenging the provision of the allowance to the staff whose services had been terminated. The petition was filed by a candidate on the waitlist who was not recruited despite being on the merit list, allegedly due to irregularities in the hiring process. On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's April 2024 order terminating the appointment of about 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by West Bengal's School Service Commission. The bench passed the order after observing that the recruitment process was 'vitiated by manipulation and fraud'. The top court on April 17 permitted 'untainted' teachers to be retained until the end of the academic year or until fresh appointments are made, whichever was earlier. However, it did not grant relief to the non-teaching staff, or Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were also cancelled. In response, the state government had announced in April that the sacked non-teaching staff would receive a monthly allowance until the Supreme Court delivered a verdict on its review petitions. On Friday, the High Court criticised the state for attempting to financially assist individuals whose employment had been declared fraudulent by the Supreme Court and directed 'tainted' candidates to 'refund any salary/payment received', Live Law reported. By introducing a stipend scheme, the state was undermining the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court observed. 'Once the highest court of the land has decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer,' the court said. The court also instructed the state government to submit its counter-affidavit addressing the petitioners' claims within four weeks, and allowed the petitioners two weeks after that to file their response, PTI reported. In April 2024, the High Court had passed its direction on the termination of the appointments based on the findings of a re-evaluation of the Optical Mark Recognition sheets from the 2016 recruitment examination in the case. The re-evaluation found that the selected teachers had been recruited against blank Optical Mark Recognition sheets.

Business Standard

41 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate: The 3D solution for India's Pakistan problem

Last week, National Interest teased a sequel: The perils of self-hyphenation. What does this mean? For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes: 'You cannot choose your neighbours.' India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. They are in a tight strategic alliance, which is today perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy, as during Operation Sindoor, or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from Western powers (read the United States). Progress on this was slow, until the first Bill Clinton term, and then picked up. In the two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a Western leader combined visits to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Mr Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. The Americans used a different description, saying that their view on the subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle — that henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council Resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Mr Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully, what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Mr Trump takes a chill pill on the subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Mr Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's), political discourse, and not necessarily after Op Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring, compared to China, 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: That's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: We've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. India's larger strategic plan of these three decades is sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan, as you've moved into a different orbit, and are poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring — especially since 2019, after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage where even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan army its pre-eminence there. See how Op Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India — where its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat, as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem.

Time of India

44 minutes ago

• Time of India

US Supreme Court races to wrap up 10 key cases, including birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump 's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 10 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. On Wednesday it decided one of its most closely watched cases, handing down an opinion that upheld a Tennessee ban on some healthcare for transgender minors. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the US. Live Events The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. ALSO READ: Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. ALSO READ: DHS sets strict limits on lawmaker visits to immigration detention centers The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as "Prince and Knight" and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.