ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) – Easy English Classroom Explainer

Imagine being picked up by the police in the middle of the night, kept in jail without trial, and told that you cannot even knock on the court’s door. This was the reality during the Emergency of 1975–77. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla is the case where the Supreme Court had to decide whether a detained person could still ask the court for a writ of habeas corpus.

• During Emergency, the President suspended enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights, including Article 21 (life and personal liberty) using Article 359.
• Many people, including political opponents, were detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA).
• Some High Courts said that even during Emergency, illegal or mala fide detention could be challenged through habeas corpus.
• The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that when Article 21 is suspended, no one can move the court at all.

The majority of the Supreme Court accepted the Government’s view. Only one judge, Justice H.R. Khanna, firmly said that the State cannot take away life and liberty without law, even during Emergency. His lone dissent later became the true voice of the Constitution.

1. Whether, during a Proclamation of Emergency and a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspending the enforcement of Article 21, a detained person can file a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 before a High Court.
2. Whether the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) completely blocks the jurisdiction of High Courts to examine even illegal or mala fide detention orders.
3. Whether Section 16A(9) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, allowing the Government to keep detention grounds secret, is valid and binding on the courts during Emergency.

• Article 352 – allows the President to declare a National Emergency on certain grounds (here, “internal disturbance”).
• Article 359(1) – allows the President to suspend the right to move any court for enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights during Emergency.
• Article 21 – guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, except according to “procedure established by law.”
• Article 22 – gives protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, such as the right to be informed of grounds and right to consult a lawyer.
• Article 226 – gives High Courts power to issue writs, including habeas corpus, for enforcement of rights and for any other purpose.
• Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) – a preventive detention law used widely during the Emergency.
• Section 16A(9) of MISA – allowed the Government to withhold the grounds of detention from the court, treating them as confidential.

Along with these, common law principles of natural justice and the long tradition of habeas corpus formed the background against which the Court had to interpret the Constitution.

Majority Ratio Decidendi

• During a validly proclaimed Emergency, when a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspends the right to move court for enforcement of Article 21, no person can challenge detention through habeas corpus.
• The jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is effectively cut down for such matters; illegality or mala fides in the detention order cannot be examined.
• Confidentiality provisions like Section 16A(9) of MISA, which limit disclosure of detention grounds, are constitutionally valid at such times.

Justice H.R. Khanna’s Historic Dissent

Justice Khanna completely disagreed with the majority on the basic nature of life and liberty. He said that the right to life is not a gift of the Constitution; it is a basic human right which every person has by birth. The Constitution only recognises and regulates this right; it does not create it from zero.

• Even if Article 21 is suspended, the State cannot lawfully take a person’s life or liberty without authority of law. Courts must retain the power to check naked illegality.
• If a person is detained without any legal basis or for completely mala fide reasons, they must still have some route to challenge it; otherwise, the system moves from rule of law to dictatorship.
• Democracy is truly tested in times of crisis. If courts abandon liberty when it is most in danger, the Constitution becomes an empty promise.

Justice Khanna knew that his dissent might cost him the chance to become Chief Justice of India, and that is exactly what happened. But his opinion later became the moral and constitutional guide. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur and said that Justice Khanna was right.

• Test of Democracy: The case shows how institutions behave when the Executive is very strong. It reminds us that courts must stand with the Constitution especially in times of fear and crisis.
• Role of Dissent: Sometimes only one judge speaks for liberty. Justice Khanna’s single voice became the foundation for later constitutional development in India.
• Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Fully Switched Off: Later decisions, especially Puttaswamy, accepted that certain rights are so basic that the State cannot completely extinguish them.
• Warning for the Future: ADM Jabalpur is often taught as an example of what courts should avoid – blind trust in the Executive and a narrow reading of rights.
• Human Story: Behind the legal language, there were real people in jail, away from their families, with no trial and no clear hope. The case keeps their struggle alive in legal memory.

1. ADM Jabalpur arose directly from the 1975 National Emergency and mass detentions under MISA.
2. The main dispute was: can a person file habeas corpus when Article 21 enforcement is suspended by a Presidential Order under Article 359(1)?
3. The Supreme Court majority said “no” and held that even illegal detentions cannot be challenged in such a situation.
4. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, saying that the right to life and liberty is a basic human right that cannot be fully taken away.
5. The decision is widely criticised as a low point in Indian constitutional law and is now formally overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy.
6. For exams, connect ADM Jabalpur with topics like Emergency powers, Article 21, preventive detention, and the importance of judicial review.

Use this small memory kit to quickly recall ADM Jabalpur in the exam hall.

• E – Emergency: Case born during the 1975 Emergency (Article 352 + Article 359 Order).
• M – MISA: Detentions under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
• H – Habeas Corpus Blocked: Majority says no habeas corpus, no locus standi.
• D – Dissent of Khanna J.: Human liberty survives, even if Article 21 is “suspended.”

3-Step Hook Story

1. Step 1 – Switch Off: Imagine a big “OFF” switch on Article 21 during Emergency – the majority accepts that the switch cuts off court access.
2. Step 2 – Closed Court Doors: Picture all High Court doors locked when a detainee comes with a habeas corpus petition.
3. Step 3 – One Light On: In this darkness, only one light is on – Justice Khanna saying, “Life and liberty are deeper than any Emergency order.”

I – Issue

Can a person detained under MISA during Emergency file a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court under Article 226 when a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) has suspended enforcement of Article 21?

R – Rule

• Article 352: Proclamation of Emergency.
• Article 359(1): Suspension of right to move courts to enforce certain Fundamental Rights.
• Article 21 and 22: Life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest.
• Article 226: High Courts’ power to issue writs, including habeas corpus.
• MISA, especially Section 16A(9): Preventive detention and confidentiality of grounds.

A – Application

The majority read Article 359(1) very broadly. They held that once the President suspends the right to move court for Article 21, the courts cannot even check if detention is illegal, mala fide, or without following the statute. High Courts’ power under Article 226 was therefore seen as blocked for such detentions.

Justice Khanna, in contrast, said that life and liberty are basic human rights which exist even beyond the Constitution. According to him, even during Emergency, the courts must be able to see if the State has any legal authority to detain a person.

C – Conclusion

The Court, by a 4–1 majority, held that no person had locus standi to move the High Court for habeas corpus during Emergency when Article 21 enforcement was suspended. Justice Khanna dissented. This majority view was later rejected and overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy, which endorsed Khanna J.’s position.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  Expanded Article 21 and linked it with Articles 14 and 19; brought “fair, just and reasonable” procedure.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

  Recognised the right to privacy and expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur, praising Justice Khanna’s dissent.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

  Early preventive detention case; narrow reading of Article 21 later corrected by Maneka Gandhi.
• ADM Jabalpur’s Overruling Line of Cases

  Later judgments on rule of law, basic structure, and checks on Emergency powers consistently move away from the majority view in ADM Jabalpur.