A.D.M. Jabalpur Case (1976)
– Habeas Corpus and the Emergency
Background of the Case
In June 1975, a National Emergency was proclaimed on the ground of internal disturbance.
Following this:
- Thousands of people were detained without trial
- Detentions were carried out under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971
- A Presidential Order under Article 359 suspended the enforcement of → Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)
Several detenus approached High Courts seeking writs of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of their detention.
Conflicting High Court decisions led to the matter reaching the Supreme Court as A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Does a person have any remedy against illegal detention during Emergency?
- Can writs like habeas corpus be issued when Article 21 is suspended?
- Is Article 21 the sole source of the right to life and personal liberty?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court delivered a highly restrictive ruling.
(a) Article 21 as the Sole Repository
The Court held that:
- Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty against the State
- There is no natural or common law right to personal liberty outside Article 21
(b) No Locus Standi During Emergency
The Court further ruled that:
- Once the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended under Article 359
- No person has locus standi to move:
- A High Court under Article 226, or
- Any court for a writ of habeas corpus
Thus:
Even illegal or mala fide detention could not be judicially challenged during the Emergency.
(c) Validity of MISA Upheld
Based on this reasoning:
- The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16A(9) of MISA, 1971
- Detention orders were placed beyond judicial scrutiny
The Lone Dissent – Justice H.R. Khanna
Justice H.R. Khanna, in his historic dissent, held that:
- The right to life and personal liberty exists independently of Article 21
- Even during Emergency:
- The State cannot act without authority of law
- Courts can examine illegal detention
His dissent later became the moral and constitutional compass for Indian jurisprudence.
Impact and Criticism
(a) Judicial Failure During Emergency
The judgment is widely regarded as:
- A seriously flawed decision
- A failure of the Supreme Court to act as:
- The defender of fundamental rights
- The guardian of constitutional liberties
It marked the lowest ebb of judicial independence in India.
(b) Constitutional Correction – 44th Amendment Act, 1978
To prevent recurrence:
- The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 amended Article 359
- It provided that:
- Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be suspended → Even during Emergency
Thus:
The core of human dignity was placed beyond executive reach.
Present Legal Status of the Judgment
- After the 44th Amendment:
- The ruling in A.D.M. Jabalpur is no longer good law
- It survives only as:
- A constitutional warning
- An academic reference
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Phase | Position |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | Narrow view of Article 21 |
| A.D.M. Jabalpur (1976) | Suspension of liberty |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Expansive Article 21 |
| 44th Amendment (1978) | Article 21 non-suspendable |
Conclusion
The A.D.M. Jabalpur Case (1976) held that during Emergency, with Article 21 suspended, no writ of habeas corpus lies even against illegal detention, a view later nullified by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, making the judgment obsolete.