This case is popularly known for the habeas corpus and was decided by the Supreme Court of India on 28th April 1976 by the five judges bench consisting of then Chief Justice A.N Ray, Justice M.H beg, Justice H.R Khanna, Justice Y.V Chandrachud and Justice P.N Bhagwati.

During the 1970s when the Art.352 was imposed, all the institutions are polarized and politicized and even the Supreme Court of India was also disturbed from the emergency.

Facts

The Allahabad high court passed a conviction order against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for using the wrongful practice to win the election of RAE BARELI. On this order Indira Gandhi requested President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to impose emergency provision mentioned under Art352 (1) of the constitution. The president declared grave emergency on 25th June1975 and used his power mentioned under Art.359 (1), Art.359 (1A). This proclamation leads to the suspension of Art.14, Art.21 and Art.22 of the Indian constitution during the emergency period by the President on 27th June 1975.

This leads to the huge anger outburst among the members of opposition and leaders of various parties. Many strikes and rally took place, to stop these activities the government detained them and put a sensor under MISA act (Maintenance of Internal Securities) 1971. It deals with the detention under certain cases without warrant or search and gives numerous powers to the centre government. This act was passed by the Parliament in 1971. The MISA act was placed in the 9th schedule as per the 39th amendment of the constitution.

Due to this wrongful detention petitioner approached to various high courts using “habeas corpus” under Art.226 which means “that you have the body”.  It is the writ used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine the detention as valid.

Issues

  • Whether Article 226 will be applicable, when the Presidential order is passed under Article 359 (1) & Article 359 (1A)?
  • And if it is applicable to use, then what is the judicial scrutiny in view of Presidential order?

Petitioner Argument

The Petitioner challenged the power of President under Art.359 (1), Art.359 (1A) that suspends the fundamental rights of the person under Art.14, Art.21, and Art.22 along with the wrongful detention under MISA act. Through this act people were wrongfully detained for a long period of time.  

Respondent Argument

The state presented its argument saying that if the President has suspended the fundamental rights ensured under Art.14, Art.21 and Art.22 under Art.359 (1), Art359 (1A). Then it can’t be challenged in the court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

The high court declared that even in the case of Emergency and Presidential order the court may check detention of the person is as per the MISA act or not. Later on this judgment along with section 18 of MISA act was challenged in the Honorable Supreme Court.

Finally the majority judgment was pronounced in 4:1 ratio by 5 Judges bench namely- chief Justice A.N Ray, Justice M.H beg, Justice H.R Khanna, Justice Y.V Chandrachud and Justice P.N Bhagwati.

Judgement

Majority of the Judges were in the support of section 18 of MISA act and declared it valid. Along with this they declared Art21 as a single source and also denied to use Art.226 during the Presidential order.

A dissent judgment was passed by Justice Khanna who said that Art.21 is not only the single source of Protection of life and liberty. And without this Article also, the state cannot detain any person without any lawful ground. As per him the person can move to court for the enforcement of Art21.

Conclusion

The case ADM JABALPUR V.S SHIVKANT SHUKLA was the most famous judgment pronounced by the majority of the judges. This case is known for the habeas corpus and was criticized everywhere. The MISA law was repealed in 1977 when Janata Party came into force after the election against Congress Party.  The 44th amendment was made in the constitution which led to the origin of “armed rebellion”. This amendment made Art.21 and Art.22 applicable even during the emergency.       

 About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Ms. Bhawna Sharma, law student at Amity Law School, Noida and was an intern at MyLawman. She can be reached at bsharma96031@gmail.com.  

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.

 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here