- CJI A.N. RayFavored (Majority)
- Justice M.H. BegFavored (Majority)
- Justice Y.V. ChandrachudFavored (Majority)
- Justice P.N. BhagwatiFavored (Majority)
- Justice H.R. KhannaOpposed (Lone Dissent)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, 32, 226, 352, 358, 359)
- Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA)
- Presidential Order under Article 359(1) (dated June 27, 1975)
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 491 - Habeas Corpus prior to Constitution)
- Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964)
- Liversidge v. Anderson (UK Wartime Case)
- Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria (UK Privy Council)
This case, decided during the National Emergency proclaimed in 1975, addressed a critical question: Could a person challenge their detention through a writ of Habeas Corpus (under Article 226 in High Courts) when the President had issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22?
Numerous individuals were detained across India under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) during the Emergency. Several High Courts had allowed Habeas Corpus petitions, ruling that even if the right to enforce Article 21 was suspended, the legality of the detention order itself (whether it was ultra vires the Act, mala fide, or based on irrelevant grounds) could still be examined. The State appealed these High Court decisions to the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS
Respondents' Case (Detenus / Shivkant Shukla)
- The Presidential Order under Article 359 only bars moving the court for enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights. It does not suspend the rights themselves or the writ of Habeas Corpus entirely.
- The right to life and personal liberty existed even before the Constitution (under common law and natural law) and Article 21 merely recognizes it. Therefore, detention can be challenged even if Article 21 enforcement is suspended.
- Courts can still examine if the detention order is valid under the parent Act (MISA), i.e., whether it is passed by a competent authority, is not mala fide, or based on extraneous considerations.
- Suspending all judicial scrutiny would lead to absolute executive power and negate the rule of law.
Appellant's Case (State / ADM Jabalpur)
- Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution.
- Once the right to enforce Article 21 is suspended by a valid Presidential Order under Article 359, no writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained to challenge the legality of a detention.
- The suspension is absolute regarding the specified fundamental rights, barring any judicial inquiry into the detention's legality (except perhaps on grounds the order is not by a competent authority or not under the Act at all).
- Judicial review during an Emergency would undermine the State's ability to maintain security.
Case Progression Timeline
National Emergency Proclaimed
President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaims a National Emergency under Article 352 citing "internal disturbance".
June 25, 1975Presidential Order under Art 359
President issues an order suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22.
June 27, 1975Widespread Detentions under MISA
Numerous political opponents, activists, and others detained across India under MISA.
1975 onwardsHigh Courts Grant Habeas Corpus Relief
Several High Courts entertain Habeas Corpus petitions, ruling that the legality of detention orders can still be examined on limited grounds.
Late 1975 - Early 1976State Appeals to Supreme Court
The government appeals the High Court judgments to the Supreme Court.
Early 1976Supreme Court Judgment (ADM Jabalpur)
By a 4:1 majority, SC rules that Habeas Corpus petitions challenging detention are not maintainable during the Emergency when Art 21 enforcement is suspended.
April 28, 197644th Amendment Act
Post-Emergency, Parliament passes the 44th Amendment, amending Article 359 to state that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an Emergency.
1978In one of the most heavily criticized judgments in its history, the Supreme Court ruled by a 4:1 majority in favour of the State. The majority held that following the Presidential Order under Article 359 suspending the enforcement of Article 21, no person had any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for Habeas Corpus or any other writ to challenge the legality of their detention.
The majority effectively stated that Article 21 was the sole source of the right to life and personal liberty, and its suspension meant all avenues for judicial review of detention were closed, even if the detention was arbitrary, mala fide, or mistaken. Justice H.R. Khanna delivered a powerful lone dissent, famously stating that Article 21 was not the sole repository of life and liberty and that the state had no power to deprive a person of life or liberty without the authority of law even during an emergency.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The majority adopted a highly positivist and textual interpretation, focusing solely on the effect of the Presidential Order under Article 359. They reasoned that the suspension of the remedy (approaching the court) effectively rendered the right (under Article 21) non-existent for judicial purposes during the Emergency. They rejected the argument that life and liberty had pre-constitutional origins that could be invoked. The majority opinions prioritized state security during the Emergency above individual liberty and judicial review. Justice Khanna's dissent, conversely, emphasized the rule of law, natural justice, and the inherent value of human life and liberty, arguing that the Constitution did not permit a state of lawlessness even during an emergency. His dissent is widely celebrated as a courageous defence of fundamental freedoms.
FINAL VERDICT
- The appeals by the State were allowed; the High Court judgments granting Habeas Corpus relief were set aside.
- In view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975 under Article 359(1), 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 to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act (MISA) or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides or extraneous considerations.
RATIO DECIDENDI
(Majority View): Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. When the right to move any court for the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended by a valid Presidential Order under Article 359(1), the locus standi of any person to file a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 challenging the legality of their detention is also suspended.
(Dissenting View - Khanna J.): Article 21 is not the sole repository of the right to life and liberty; this right is a basic human right existing independently of the Constitution. The suspension of the remedy under Article 359 does not suspend the right itself, nor does it absolve the State from acting in accordance with the law. The legality of a detention order (compliance with the statute, absence of mala fides) can still be examined by courts.
(Note: The majority view in this case was effectively nullified by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978, which made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable during an Emergency. The judgment itself was formally overruled by the Supreme Court in the Right to Privacy case - K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).)