CASE COMMENTARY ON ADM JABALPUR V. SHIVKANT SHUKLA (AIR 1976 SC 1207)
Author – Jasleen Pasricha & Kumar kislay, Students at Christ University Delhi NCR
Best Citation – Jasleen Pasricha & Kumar kislay, CASE COMMENTARY ON ADM JABALPUR V. SHIVKANT SHUKLA (AIR 1976 SC 1207), ILE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, 2 (1) of 2023, Pg. 48-51, ISSN – 2583-7168.
ABSTRACT
When challenged over her Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi imposed emergency in June 1975 under Article 352(1) of the Indian Constitution[1]. Though expressed as for the public good, but emergency proved to be a debacle for Indian citizens. Opposition members were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). The case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla was one of the cases raised during this period and where the government had to show its presence. It is also known as the Habeas Corpus Case as the writ was not allowed to be used by the citizens. This is a case with still existing controversies. Example- Justice DY Chandrachud criticized his father- YV Chandrachud’s decision and said that he should have supported Justice HR Khanna’s dissenting judgement that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 even during emergency period as it’s the most basic right inclusive of more Fundamental Rights for a person to live. This is the case commentary over this landmark case. Post this judgement and the trauma of Emergency, there were seen a lot of changes and amendments in the Indian Constitution including 44th Amendment and 42nd Amendment. In 2017, this particular case was overruled by K.S. Puttaswamy v. union of India 2017 10 SCC 1[2]. The dissent of Justice HR Khanna in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla was given great recognition in K.S. Puttaswamy v. union of India. Infact, the concept of right to Privacy was added to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as an inclusive right.
Keywords– Emergency, Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Habeas Corpus, Dissent, Right to Life, Personal Liberty, Amendment.
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 352, cl.1
[2] K.S. Puttaswamy v. union of India 2017 10 SCC 1