Supreme Court. Credit: PTI. Justice H. Credit: Wikipedia.
|Published (Last):||25 August 2016|
|PDF File Size:||13.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. She appealed to the supreme court and the Apex court only granted her a conditional stay. Due to restraining her political power by the Apex court made her dysfunctional in a matter of vote or speak in Lok Sabha. The war with Pakistan was just ended and the drought were the reasons given by the government for a declaration of emergency, as they were damaged the economic growth and blocked the growth of the nation.
On June 27 , the exercise of power given by Clause 1 of Article of the constitution were enforced on the people of India and the foreigners, within the right to approach the court to enforce Article 14 right to equality , Article 21 and Article 22 prevention against detention in certain cases , Which are also available for foreigner and all the proceeding that was pending related to above- mentioned article will remain suspended for the period of Emergency.
These people then filed petitions in various High Court in the country challenging the detainment. Most of the high court gave their judgement in favour of these petitions which compelled Indira Gandhi Government to approach Supreme Court for this issue and which became Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla. It is also called the Habeas Corpus To Produce the Body Case because usually, this is a writ filed in a supreme court when someone is arrested.
At the time when Emergency was proclaimed, this writ was not considered as a fundamental right under article 21 remained suspended. The Arguments presented by the Petitioner:. The Arguments on behalf of the Respondent:. Finally, it was urged that 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.
Shukla Etc. Ray, along with Justices M. Beg, Y. Chandrachud and P. The factual background of the case was that on June 26 th , the President of India under clause 1 of Article of the Indian Constitution declared a state of emergency citing reasons of internal disturbances. The preventative detention led to filing of several writ petitions all over the country. A few High Courts allowed the writ of Habeas Corpus and ruled in favour of the petitioners stating that even though Article 21 was not enforceable, a person could still demonstrate that their detention was not in compliance of the law under which they were detained, or that the action by the State was mala fide or that it was a case of mistaken identity.
The Government of the day decided to appeal against the decisions of the High Courts in the Supreme Court, which later became famous and known as the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur vs. Shiv Kant Shukla case or the Habeas Corpus case. The main issue before their Lordship was whether, in execution of the Presidential Orders when a person was detained, if the High Court can entertain a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a person challenging the ground for his detention?
In this case the four judges Chief Justice A. Bhagwati has arrived at the same conclusion, which is that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in case of proclamation of emergency under article 1 which states Where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, the President may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III except Article 20 and 21 as may be mentioned in the order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so mentioned shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force or for such shorter period as may be specified in the order.
The four judges said that the court has no authority or powers to challenge if the detention made under sec 16A 9 b which states no person against whom an order of detention is made or purported to be made under Section 3 shall be entitled to the communication or disclosure of any such ground, information or material as is referred to in clause a or the production to him of any document containing such ground, information or material as under the act it clearly states that the grounds of the detention need not be disclosed hence the court cannot question the state or the executive body to validate the detention.
Hence the party does not have locus standi to movie to any court for maintain suit on fundamental rights. Justice Y. Chandrachud also said that the executive body must perform in accordance with the law passed by the parliament as it is the basic principle that all action of the executive must have law supporting its action.
He further says that the precedential order issued under article 1 does not give clarity regarding disobeying the parliamentary law. Therefore, the state need not furnish the reason for dentation. Justice Khanna had dissenting opinion on the point that during proclamation of emergency or presidential order under article 1 even if the person cannot go to the court of law for the enforcement of fundamental right under the constitutional remedy that does not restrain him from exercising his legal remedy through statute.
Also, he denied that article 21 is not the sole repository of right to life and personal liberty even in absence of article 21 in the constitution the state cannot deprive a person from his right to life and personal liberty as this formulates the basic postulate of a civilized society. During the proclamation of emergency article 21 only loses the procedural power but the substantive power of this article is very fundamental and the State does not have the power to deprive any person life and liberty without the authority of law.
The Majority judgment held that a person cannot approach the court with the writ of habeas corpus or of any other writ remedy. Also, the court of law does not have the power to look into the validity of detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, as the statue does not give powers to the court the review the validity of the detention.
The case of A. M Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla is one of the landmark cases in the history of Indian legal system as it is one of those cases which paved the way for further developments in the legal system by exposing the existing loopholes.
Fascinatingly, at the same time, the case is also a dark spot in the legal system and the judiciary. The reason for that is, in this case, the courts refused to address and recognize the plights of the citizens of India by completely neglecting the rights bestowed upon a person upon birth.
Upon the request of Indira Gandhi to the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, an emergency was declared on June 26, under clause 1 of article of the constitution of India. On June 27 , the exercise of powers conferred by clause 1 of Article of the Indian constitution were enforced, within which the right of any person including a foreigner to move to the court to enforce Article 14 right to equality , Article 21 and Article 22 prevention against detention in certain cases of the Constitution and all the proceedings pending in any court concerned with the enforcement of the aforementioned articles will remain suspended for the period of Emergency.
Upon an examination of the particular judgment of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla , one gets to know that there are different perceptions, opinions and views on the given case. Article is significantly more extensive than the Article because on one hand all the fundamental rights are suspended as entire according to Article , but on the other hand Article does not suspend any rights.
The nexus amongst State and Executive is flawed and the impact of suspension of such rights will emerge in the form of additional energy in the hands of the legislature which may formulate laws against the fundamental rights.
There is a legal and reasonable degree to which a State can act in or against the people and for this situation, it was high abuse of powers of individual political profit of a particular individual. Additionally, the State just holds the privilege to arrest if the supposed act falls under Section 3 of MISA and its each condition is satisfied.
In the event that any condition is unfulfilled then detention is past the powers of State. The verdict by the Supreme Court is said to be the greatest incorrect judgment till date. The contradicting opinion of Justice Khanna still holds more substance than the majority judgment including the then Chief Justice. Before Proclamation of Emergency there was rampant political instability in the Country after the election of Indira Gandhi was termed to be as unlawful.
Just the boldness of single judge is said to be worth perusing and it was in consonance with humanity, freedom and liberty. It is one of the pillars of free democratic society.
Men have readily laid down their lives at its altar, in order to secure it, protect it and preserve it. But I do not think it would be right for me to allow my love of personal liberty to cloud my vision or to persuade me to place on the relevant provision of the Constitution a construction which its language cannot reasonably bear. In fact, when the counsel for the people argued by citing the example of the genocide of the Jews at the hands of Hitler and how, if the decision is given in favor of the petitioner, will give rise to a similar scenario, was scolded and ridiculed by C.
Exceeding all that, this judgment did not even favor the rule of law. As a judge, the supreme focus is on the benefit of the public or on something which is good for the citizens and the society as a whole but this judgment, seemed to favor only five persons- Indira Gandhi and the other four judges delivering this judgment, including the then Chief Justice of India- Justice A. Ray and we conclude this from the fact that all the judges, with an exception of Justice H.
Khanna, went on to become Chief Justices. So much was the greed of power that even though Justice Khanna was the next in line to become the Chief Justice, the throne was given to Justice Beg who was J. Khanna gave his resignation. Justice Khanna exclusively relied on the judgment delivered in the case of Makkhan Singh v. Let us take a case where a detenu has been detained in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
In such a case, it may be open to the detenu to contend that his detention is illegal for the reason that the mandatory provisions of the Act have been contravened.
Curtailment of Article 21 would in general terms mean that there occurs deprivation of right to life and personal liberty, which is against the fundamental right ensured to every citizen of India since birth, along with the Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, India is a part of which. This particular case became an example of how four most able and experienced judges of the apex court of the country made a blunder under the wrong influence of the wrong person.
It was the darkest hour of Indian judiciary which struck at the very heart of fundamental rights. And, as mentioned earlier, all four judges with the exception of Justice Khanna went on to become Chief Justices of India. In , Justice P. The majority judgment was not the correct judgment. If it was open to me to come to a fresh decision in that case, I would agree with what Justice Khanna did.
I am sorry. Initially, I was not in favour of the majority view. I was a novice at that time, a young judge. I was handling this type of litigation for the first time. But it was an act of weakness on my part. In a little while after the period of Emergency and all things which were done for it were rejected by in , the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Gopalan v. Both these Articles cannot be split apart and not exclusive of each other.
It was further put forward that the very objective of the Presidential order under Article was to curb legal problems and that it was simpler to make laws against fundamental rights. The responsibility of the government to act according to the rules laid down by law and suspension of Article 21 did not by default demand the adjournment of rule of law.
Bhanudas Krishna Gawde  went another step ahead and gave out its judgment which was, Presidential order issued under Article are not restricted by any limitation and their validity and applicability is not based on the fulfillment of any particular condition laid before.
These orders establish a temporary prohibition on any and each judicial enquiry into legitimacy of an order denying somebody of his freedom and liberty, regardless of how it began whether from an order coordinating the detainment or from an order setting out the state of his arrest.
Most part of the opinions seen in the Shivkant Shukla case has been totally negated by 44th Amendment of the Constitution and also legal elucidation and along these lines, it is not any more longer a law. Articles and have not been summoned since repudiation of Proclamation of Emergency in and in mid Numerous such arrangements in 44th Amendment for announcement of Emergency were made so that no administration in future can abuse this arrangement of Constitution which was deciphered illegally by the SupremeCourt.
The Proclamation and discretionary utilization of force by the State apparatus and taking ceaselessly the individual freedom of various individuals alongside judicial stamp can be viewed as a standout amongst the most mistaken judgment till date.
Incomparable Court went ahead to expand the elucidation of Article 21 and acquainted Public Interest Litigation with increase open authenticity after it confronted feedback over the judgment and harm it had done. The wrong elucidation prompted to encroachment of fundamental rights on impulses and favor of a political figure that had her plan to satisfy. There must be an unmistakable overruling of this judgment so that hypothetical nature of Rule of Law can be clarified alongside its applicability to our judicial framework.
Additionally, additional arrangements might be made to guarantee that no political plan ought to dominate equity and value of the citizens of the nation. Jabalpur Vs. Friday, June 5, Law Times Journal. Case Summary. The reason behind this was that during an emergency the considerations of the state assume supreme importance.
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521 – Case Summary
New Delhi: At a time when the nearly month-long communications clampdown in Jammu and Kashmir is making national and international headlines, the legal provision of habeas corpus has come into focus. In both cases, the court allowed the petitioners to travel to Kashmir and see the persons in question for themselves. ThePrint looks back at the case, and how far the Indian judiciary has come from it, prominently featuring the members of one judicial family. During Emergency, under Article 1 of the Constitution, articles 14, 21 and 22, which grant the right to equality, protection of life and personal liberty, and protection against arrest and detention, were all suspended.
Why an SC judge’s dissent 43 years ago is relevant to Kashmir clampdown today
The real-life story set in Chile was also about the actions of the US government, which even had a lawsuit filed against it. That could well be why the Habeas Corpus or Produce the Person writ is a sacred one, that ties democracy to each of its citizens against the power of the state. On Independence Day, Justice D Y Chandrachud, in a formidable lecture on Freedom as Art in Mumbai, made a revealing personal statement which holds great relevance today. The senior Chandrachud was among the four SC judges who sat on the five-judge Habeas Corpus bench for 37 working days from December to February , and ruled that personal liberties in India were not to be necessarily upheld in the face of the executive after declaring Emergency.
The darkest hour: ADM Jabalpur was a test for SC. Only the dissenter passed it
In April , when the infamous Emergency was in place in India, the New York Times wrote an article eulogising a Judge of the Indian Supreme Court, for his dissenting opinion in a judgment. Khanna for his dissenting opinion in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla , 2 SCC , which was delivered 44 years ago today. The President exercising his powers under Article i. Suspension of the enforcement of fundamental rights during emergencies issued a presidential order suspending the rights of the citizens to approach the Courts for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 i.
Hans Raj Khanna
Hans Raj Khanna 3 July — 25 February was an Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in and upheld civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in He entered the Indian judiciary in as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in where he continued till his resignation in He is eulogized for his minority judgement in the highly publicized Habeas Corpus case during the Indian Emergency , in which the remaining four judges of the five-member bench, Chief Justice A. Ray , Justice M. Beg , Justice Y.