Published on: 28th January 2026
Authored by: Yash Mishra
MIT World Peace University
Facts:
The following are the facts of the case:
- Indira Gandhi had declared an Emergency under Article 352 to amend the constitution, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared an “internal disturbance”, which led to the Emergency.
- This dealt with preventive detention under Emergency Law and if a writ of habeas, corpus can be moved when basic rights are suspended. That is to say: Will an individual who is held in detention without trial during an Emergency be in a position to go to the court for relief?
- According to the Constitution, the President showed a National Emergency on the 26 & 27 of June 1975 and exercised the powers vested in him under Article 359 to make an order suspending the operation of Article 14, 21, and 22 so that no individual, either Citizen or Foreigner, could move any court for these rights during the emergency
- Some people, such as the petitioner Shivkant Shukla, were preventively detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, without trial.
- Detainees approached writ petitions under Article 226 in some High Courts to challenge their detentions and claim habeas corpus (release from unlawful detention).
- Several High Courts held in favor of the detainees to the effect that even under Emergency, detentions could be questioned if they were mala fide or contrary to law.[1]
Issues:
The issues in the said case were-
- Can a person challenging his wrongful imprisonment maintain the writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court under Proclamation of Emergency following the President’s order?
- Was Article 21’s suspension allowed under the rule of law?
- Does a detainee have LOCUS STANDI in court during an Emergency?
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 (to High Court) remained maintainable to enforce personal liberty during an Emergency?
Arguments of Parties:
- Arguments of Petitioner
- [2]Right to Life and Liberty as Inherent Rights
The petitioners had asserted that the right of life and liberty of an individual is not a constitutional concession but an inherent human right. Suspension of Article 21 could not be construed as empowering the State to eradicate these rights altogether.
- Continuity of the Rule of Law
It was argued that even during times of grave crisis, the rule of law cannot be suspended. Emergency provisions were meant to guarantee the stability of the nation, not to provide a rationale for an unregulated void wherein the executive is provided with carte blanche without any restraint.
- Judicial Review as a Constitutional Safeguard
The petitioners emphasized that habeas corpus, being an old safeguard against arbitrary detention, must not be taken away. Abrogating courts’ jurisdiction over reviewing detentions would be equivalent to removing citizens of the barest legal protection.
- Limited Application of Article 359
They contended that Article 359 suspends the application of only some of the fundamental rights before the Supreme Court. It does not repeal statutory or common law safeguards, nor does it restrict the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.
- Scope of MISA Detentions
Referencing Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), petitioners averred that detentions must comply with requirements prescribed by the law. Any detention beyond those specifications was ultra vires and required to be checked by the judiciary.
2. Arguments of Respondent
- Absolute Suspension by Presidential Order
The State contended that after the President had suspended the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 under Article 359, no writ petition for habeas corpus could be maintained. The citizens, thus, had no locus to move any court.
- Emergency Powers as Constitutional Mandates
In the view of the respondents, Articles 352, 358 and 359 clearly authorize the executive to act in the broadest possible discretion in times of emergency. These provisions were an integral part of the constitutional scheme and not an abnormality.
- Primacy of National Security
The State argued that the security and survival of the country had to come above personal liberty. Unless there existed a stable State, the individual’s rights could not be guaranteed in any real sense.
- Textual Analysis of Article 21
Respondents argued that Article 21 assures freedom only “according to procedure established by law.” When its enforcement was suspended, the judiciary could not interfere with testing legality or propriety of detentions.
- Doctrine of Necessity
State invoked the doctrine of necessity and held that exceptional situations warranted extraordinary solutions rather than extraordinary solutions in exceptional situations. Preventive detention, without the intervention of the judiciary, was necessary to maintain national security.
- Legitimacy of MISA Detentions
MISA detentions were justified as reasonable exercises of emergency statutory authority. As enforcement of fundamental rights was in abeyance, the constitutionality of such detentions could not be challenged in the courts.
Judgement:
[3]In the judgement, the issue raised was that if someone was wrongfully detained, could they still file a habeas corpus petition with the courts? The Supreme court ruled in a 4:1 majority. The Court decided that no one had the right to request enforcement of Article 21, which protects life and individual freedom, once Article 359 was invoked. Therefore, even arbitrary or illegal detentions could not be contested. Chief Justice A. N. Ray and Justices Beg, Chandrachud, and Bhagwati took the government’s side, giving the executive complete authority over individual liberty.
Ratio Decidendi:
[4]The ratio decidendi in this case would be that, according to the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, people no longer have the right to petition the courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights during an emergency when a Presidential Order under Article 359 is in effect. A person’s personal liberty was suspended, meaning that the courts could not assist them even if they were being held illegally.
Obiter Dicta:
Majority (Ray C.J., Beg, Chandrachud & Bhagwati JJ.)
[5]The majority judges stressed that state security takes precedence over individual liberty in times of national emergency. They argued that since the courts were powerless to defend individual liberties in such circumstances, citizens would have to rely on the executive branch’s “good sense.”.
Dissent (Khanna J.)
On the other hand, Justice Khanna’s opinion was quite different. According to his argument, the right to life and liberty is an inherent and unalienable right rather than something that is granted by the Constitution. He asserted that the courts must maintain their habeas corpus authority even in an emergency because, in its absence, people’s freedom would be entirely at the whim of the government.
Analysis of Judgement:
Majority Opinion (CJI A.N. Ray, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati JJ.)
The Court held that suspension of Article 21 meant suspension of the remedy itself. No one could approach the courts to enforce the right to personal liberty, and judicial review was not available. High Courts and the Supreme Court could not determine whether detention orders were legal or mala fide. This gave the executive unchecked power, leaving citizens without any remedy until the Emergency ended.
Dissenting Opinion (Justice H.R. Khanna)
According to Justice Khanna, liberty is an innate right that is not established by Article 21. He maintained that the rule of law endures even in times of emergency and government action must be lawful. It would be impossible to defend arbitrary or dishonest detention. Habeas corpus had to be maintained in order to stop wrongful detention, and judicial review was essential. He made the well-known statement that, life has no purpose without liberty.
Relevance under present law:
- 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978:
The 44th Constitutional Amendment 1978, specifically reversed the impact of ADM Jabalpur by guaranteeing that, even in times of emergency, the right to petition the courts for enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. As a result, habeas corpus was maintained as a protection for life and liberty.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
[6]Established that any “procedure” that denies someone their life or liberty must be fair, reasonable, and just, not capricious, thereby broadening the scope of Article 21. This was different from the limited reading in ADM Jabalpur.
- Strengthening of Judicial Review:
In order to ensure that no authority can act beyond the bounds of the constitution, courts were given more authority to examine executive actions and preventive detention.
- Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 – Right to Privacy case):
[7]ADM Jabalpur was explicitly overruled. The Court declared the majority view “seriously flawed” and formally upheld Khanna J.’s dissent as the correct constitutional principle. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, son of one of the majority judges in ADM Jabalpur, publicly acknowledged that his father’s judgment was a mistake.
- Present-day Relevance:
These developments guarantee that fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and dignity cannot be subject to the executive branch, even in times of emergency. A remedy that cannot be taken away is habeas corpus. Current law reinforces the judiciary’s responsibility to act as the guardian of fundamental rights against State excesses by using ADM Jabalpur as a cautionary tale and reminder of judicial failure.
Constitutional provisions:
Constitutional provisions are a set of rules or law which govern a state’s constitution. The court cannot change provision under any circumstances. Constitutional principles are the basic structure of how a country regulates following the constitution.
Constitutional provisions related to the case:
- Article 14: Equality before law
The state shall treat all people equal rights to individual before law and grant protection to all equally.[8]
- Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” (art. 21, Const. of India).
The main issue in the case was during a national emergency if the state can overrule this fundamental right.[9]
- Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
No person who is arrested and detained in custody without any knowledge can be deprived to consult a legal lawyer. Every person who is arrested and detained in custody should be produced before the magistrate under 24 hours of the arrest.
The primary issue concerning the case was that during a national emergency could a person seek a writ of habeas corpus from the high court if he is arrested and detained by the state.[10]
- Article 226: Power of high court to issue writ
High courts have the authority to issue writs to safeguard the fundamental rights of a person.
The primary issue regarding the article was that during a national emergency could this authority given to high courts to issue writ for the protection of fundamental rights of individuals will still be in force.[11]
- Articles 359: Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part 3 during emergencies
Where the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the president may by order suspend the rights given to the high court to ensure the protection of fundamental rights (except articles 20 and 21).
The concerning article highlighted the suspension of all fundamental rights except article 20 and 21.[12]
- Maintenance of internal security act [1971] MISA
This act states that the state can detain any individual with a general or specific order by the government without disclosing the grounds during a national emergency to maintain the internal security of that part or territory.
The primary issue with this act was that it overrules article 22.
Related case laws:
- Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab
In this case, the court highlighted that although the rights remained suspended but courts could still look for the legality of the detention.
In ADM Jabalpur protection of this fundamental right was denied.[14]
- K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
This earlier case dealt with personal liberty and the interpretation of Article 21, forming a foundational precedent for the ADM Jabalpur case[15]
[1] Anand Singh, June 25, 2025, “50 Years of Emergency: How Indira Gandhi Used Constitutional Provisions to Suspend Fundamental Rights,” India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/how-indira-gandhi-used-constitution-to-suspend-constitution-explained-50-years-of-emergency-1975-2746034-2025-06-25. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[2] Sri Vaishnavi, ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla – Case Analysis, iPleaders Blog (20 Jan. 2020), (last visited 24 Aug. 2025). https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla-case-analysis/
[3] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – Ratio Decidendi & Judgment
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. Accessed via: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/judgements/adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[4] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – Ratio Decidendi & Judgment
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. Accessed via: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/judgements/adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[5] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla – Obiter Dicta (Justice Khanna’s Dissent)
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, Dissenting Opinion of Justice H.R. Khanna. Accessed via: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/judgements/adm-jabalpur-vs-shivkant-shukla/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[6] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Relevance & Present Law
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. Accessed via: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/judgements/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[7] Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Overruling ADM Jabalpur
Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Accessed via: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/judgements/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india/. Accessed 24 Aug, 2025.
[8] Article 14 – Equality before Law, Constitution of India, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-14-equality-before-law/. Accessed 24 Aug, 2025.
[9] Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty, Constitution of India, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-21-protection-of-life-and-personal-liberty/. Accessed 24 Aug, 2025.
[10] “Article 22: Protection against Arrest and Detention in Certain Cases.” Constitution of India, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-22-protection-against-arrest-and-detention-in-certain-cases/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[11] “Article 226: Power of High Courts to Issue Certain Writs.” Constitution of India, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-226-power-of-high-courts-to-issue-certain-writs/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[12] “Article 359: Suspension of the Enforcement of the Rights Conferred by Part III During Emergencies.” Constitution of India, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-359-suspension-of-the-enforcement-of-the-rights-conferred-by-part-iii-during-emergencies/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[13] “Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 [MISA].” Advocatetanmoy Law Library, https://advocatetanmoy.com/maintenance-of-internal-security-act-1971misa/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[14] Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab
LawBhoomi, “Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab,” LawBhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/makhan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
[15] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
WritingLaw, “A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras – Case Explained,” WritingLaw, https://www.writinglaw.com/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-case-explained/. Accessed 24 Aug. 2025.
