Published On: September 26th 2025
Authored By: Ankit Mohanty
SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW
Introduction
One of the most controversial and historically significant judgements in Indian constitutional history is the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, otherwise known as Habeas Corpus case. This case asked whether the personal liberty and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution could be suspended during a national emergency, which was decided during the period of Emergency (1975-1977).
The detention of individuals without trial and sought enforcement of habeas corpus, petitioners challenged it. No person had the right to move any court for enforcement of fundamental rights during the emergency, holding this the majority of the Supreme Court in favour of the government supported it. This judgement brought harsh criticism for undermining judicial independence and civil liberties.
Facts
A “law of preventive detention”[1] is “preventive and precautionary” in nature but not “punitive”[2]. The “power of detention”[3] beneath such laws is not based on “proof of allegations”[4] as required in a criminal trial but it is based on “suspicion”[5]. To go behind the “truth of the alleged facts”[6], court is not allowed that. If the “material depends upon is germane”[7] (relevant) to the “object of legal detention”[8], and grounded on such material if an order is made, then the courts are “unable to act as an appellate authority”[9]. For that of the “detaining authority”[10] concerning the “necessity of detention”[11], they “cannot substitute their own opinion”[12].
Key cases referred: “Ross v. Papadopollos (1958)”[13] and “Sharpe v. Wakefield (1891)”[14]
Henceforth, no arguments were brought up on the “Constitution Amendment Acts”[15], hence those do not fall inside the scope of determination in these appeals.
“Detention orders”[16] could still be challenged even after “Presidential Orders”[17] under “Article 359”[18] (issued in 1962 and 1974), if under those orders “the fundamental right relied upon”[19] was “not suspended”[20], the judgements referred to show this point. “Protection”[21] which Article 359 gives is “not absolute”[22]. “Based on rights specifically suspended”[23], it only bars challenges. If a “detention order is made contrary to the Act or violates legal provisions”[24], yet it can be “challenged in court”[25].
It is hardly conceivable that a “detention order”[26] would distinctly state it was made for “out of malice or unauthorized purposes”[27]. Likewise, it is unlikely that a “State return”[28] would admit that the order was “beyond legal power or mala fide”[29], still continue to detain the person. Just by assuming “imaginary or hypothetical scenarios”[30], one cannot reasonably equate “detention by an authorized State officer”[31] with that by a “private individual”[32]. “Reality is stranger than fiction”[33] on this belief the courts shouldn’t be expected to operate.
Issues
Whether under “Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, a writ petition”[34], during the operation of a “National Emergency”[35] declared under “Article 359(1)”[36] is maintainable for the enforcement of the “right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21”[37].
“If such a petition is held to be maintainable, then what is the scope of judicial scrutiny with respect to the effect and validity of the Presidential Order issued under Article 359(1), which suspends the enforcement of certain fundamental rights during the period of emergency?”[38]
Petitioner’s Arguments
During “National Emergency”[39], the “emergency provisions”[40] aroused which empower the “executive”[41] to employ “complete discretion over state affairs”[42], at the same time the “interests of the state”[43] are considered of “paramount importance”[44].
Even if the “Advisory Board”[45] opines that there is “no sufficient cause for detention”[46] then also one of the key “contentions”[47] was that the “state is not obliged to release the detention”[48]. By the “suspension of Article 22”[49], such “preventive detention”[50] is justified and even assuming “Article 22”[51] to be a fundamental right, the “writ of Habeas Corpus”[52] shall not be enforced.
Henceforth, the “President”[53] through an order under “Article 359 (1)”[54] “suspended”[55] the “right to move any court”[56] for the “enforcement of rights under Article 19”[57].
“Suspension of an individual’s right”[58] to access the court for executing the “right to life and personal liberty under Article 21”[59] is a “constitutional obligation”[60], and cannot be interpreted as “absence or violation of the rule of law”[61].
“Article 359(1), Article 359(1A), and Article 358”[62], including several other “emergency provisions”[63] form part of the constitutional structure and are considered mandatory for “preserving the economic security and military forces”[64] of the nation during the time of contingency or crisis.
Respondent’s Arguments
The “first contention”[65] was that the purpose of “Article 359(1)”[66] was to permit the “enactment laws during an emergency”[67], “not to completely restrict the power of the legislature”[68], despite the fact it “violates fundamental rights”[69], as mentioned in the “Presidential Order”[70].
The “validity of the Presidential Order”[71] does “not extend”[72] to rights under “common law, natural law, or statutory law”[73] and is “limited to fundamental rights”[74].
Under “Article 352”[75], The “Proclamation of Emergency”[76] does “not expand the executive power of the State”[77] apart from the limits defined in “Article 162”[78] of the Constitution.
Furthermore, “Article 21”[79] is “not the sole repository”[80] of the “personal liberty and right to life”[81].
“Non-fundamental constitutional rights, such as those mentioned under Articles 256, 265, 361(3), along with contractual rights, statutory rights and natural rights”[82] cannot be suspended by the “Presidential Order”[83].
Only if the act in question “satisfies the conditions under Section 3 of the MISA”[84], the “State and its Officers”[85] possess the “power of arrest”[86]. If any of the indicated “conditions remain unfulfilled, the detention is ultra vires”[87] (beyond the powers) of the Act.
Lastly, it was strongly encouraged that the “Preamble of the Constitution”[88], which declares “democracy, sovereignty, and republican form of government”[89], needs that the “executive”[90], being “subordinate to the legislature”[91], should act “within the boundaries of legislative authority”[92]. It should not act “in excess of its power or arbitrarily”[93], particularly where such action might “prejudice the rights of citizens”[94]. “Only to the extent permitted by valid legislation”[95], the executive should operate according to it.
Impact of the Case
The ADM Jabalpur case had a profound and lasting impact on Indian constitutional law. The majority judgment, which upheld the suspension of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) during the Emergency, is widely criticized for compromising judicial independence and civil liberties. By ruling that no citizen could approach the courts to challenge illegal detentions during the Emergency, the Supreme Court appeared to side with the executive over individual rights, undermining the Rule of Law.
Judgement
Majority Opinion
“Chief Justice A.N. Ray led the majority, which found that the President’s proclamation might restrict the ability to petition any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including those guaranteed by Article 21, during an emergency. They reasoned that the judiciary lacked the authority to examine such detentions since the Constitution permitted the suspension of fundamental rights in times of emergency”[96].
Dissenting Judgement by Justice Khanna
The laws pertaining to preventative detention and detention without trial are viewed as bad by those who defend individual liberty.
Justice Khanna rejected the idea that Article 21 is the only source of a person’s right to life and personal freedom, arguing that even if it were absent from the constitution, the state would still not have the power to deny someone their rights without a court order.
A person’s right to life and personal liberty cannot be taken away from them since only the procedural power of Article 21 is limited during the declaration of emergency; the substantive power is unaffected.
Understanding the distinction between a lawless and a lawful society requires upholding the sanctity of life and liberty.
References
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case
https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/ADM-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[8] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[9] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[11] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[12] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[13] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[14] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[15] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[16] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[17] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[18] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[19] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[20] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[21] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[22] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[23] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[24] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[25] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[26] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[27] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[28] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[29] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[30] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[31] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[32] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[33] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[34] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[35] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[36] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[37] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[38] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[39] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[40] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[41] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[42] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[43] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[44] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[45] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[46] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[47] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[48] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[49]“The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[50] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[51] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[52] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[53] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[54] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[55] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[56] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[57] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[58] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[59] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[60] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[61] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[62] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[63] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[64] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[65] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[66] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[67] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[68] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[69] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[70] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[71] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[72] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[73] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[74] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[75] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[76] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[77] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[78] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[79] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[80] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[81] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[82] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[83] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[84] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[85]“The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[86] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[87] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[88] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[89] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[90] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[91] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[92] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[93] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[94] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[95] “The Habeas Corpus (ADM Jabalpur) Case” (Aashayein Judiciary) <https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/the-habeas-corpus-adm-jabalpur-case> accessed July 27, 2025
[96] <https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/ADM-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla> accessed July 28, 2025
