Why this matters now
ADM Jabalpur is tested as the historical low-point of Indian judiciary, the basis for the 44th Amendment 1978 safeguards (Articles 20 & 21 non-suspendable), and Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent that became a moral compass.
Context: the 1975 Emergency
PM Indira Gandhi proclaimed an Emergency under Article 352 on 25 June 1975. Under Article 359 (as then read), the President suspended the right to move courts for enforcement of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22. Opposition leaders (Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Morarji Desai, George Fernandes, Charan Singh, JP Narayan, plus thousands of activists) were detained under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971). Habeas corpus petitions began flooding High Courts; many HCs (Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Bombay, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, Delhi) had granted relief, holding that suspension of FR enforcement does not affect “personal liberty” as such.
The 4:1 verdict
The Government appealed to the SC. A 5-judge Constitution Bench held by 4:1 on 28 April 1976:
- Majority (CJI A.N. Ray, Chandrachud Sr., Beg, Bhagwati): During Emergency with suspension under Art 359, NO PERSON has any locus standi to move HC under Art 226 for enforcement of any right to personal liberty. Habeas corpus petitions are NOT maintainable.
- Lone dissent — Justice H.R. Khanna: “What is at stake is the rule of law... The constitutional protections of life and liberty cannot be wholly subjected to Executive caprice... Detention without the authority of law would not be permissible even during the Emergency.”
- Khanna was superseded for CJI in January 1977 in favour of Justice M.H. Beg; Khanna resigned.
Aftermath: 44th Amendment + Puttaswamy 2017
44th Amendment 1978 (Janata Government): amended Article 359 to provide that Articles 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended even during Emergency. This reversed the ADM Jabalpur position in textual terms.
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (24 August 2017), the 9-judge bench unanimously held: “The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed... ADM Jabalpur must be and is accordingly overruled.” Justice Y.V. Chandrachud (son of the 1976 majority Chandrachud Sr.) authored the overruling paragraph.
UPSC angle
Know ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla 1976 (Habeas Corpus Case) — 5-judge bench 4:1 verdict 28 April 1976 during Emergency (declared 25 Jun 1975); held that during Emergency with Article 359 suspension, NO PERSON can move HC under Art 226 for personal liberty; majority A.N. Ray CJI + Chandrachud Sr + Beg + Bhagwati; SOLE DISSENT JUSTICE H.R. KHANNA (denied CJI in Jan 1977 in favour of Justice M.H. Beg, resigned); 44th Amendment 1978 amended Article 359 to make Articles 20 & 21 NON-SUSPENDABLE even during Emergency; EXPRESSLY OVERRULED in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 24 Aug 2017 (9-judge unanimous, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud authored the overruling paragraph).
Frequently asked questions
What was decided in ADM Jabalpur?
By 4:1, the SC held that during Emergency with Article 359 suspension, no person can invoke habeas corpus to challenge personal-liberty detention. Universally regarded as the SC’s darkest hour.
Who was the sole dissenting judge?
Justice H.R. Khanna — he was subsequently superseded for the Chief Justiceship and resigned in protest.
How did the 44th Amendment respond?
It amended Article 359 to provide that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency.
When was ADM Jabalpur overruled?
In Puttaswamy v. Union of India (24 Aug 2017), where a 9-judge unanimous bench expressly overruled it.