Latest News
Back
Document:
Case Analysis : ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla
Title of case: ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla
Citation: 1976 (2) SCC 521; AIR 1976 SC 1207
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A.N. Ray, Hans Raj Khanna, Mirza Hameedullah Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati
Parties;
Petitioner: Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur
Respondent: S.S. Shukla, etc.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 25th June 1975, the President of India excising his powers granted by Article 352(1) of our Constitution, declared that there was a grave emergency where the security of our country was under threat by internal disturbances. On 27th of June, 1975, by exercising the powers granted under Article 359 of the Constitution of India, it was declared that the right of any person including the foreigners to move any court to enforce their rights which have been granted to them under Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and also all the proceedings that are pending in the court for the above-mentioned rights will remain barred during the period of emergency which was made under Article 352 of Indian Constitution.
On 8th of January, 1976 by exercising the powers granted under Article 352 of our Constitution, the President of India passed declared the right of any person to move to any court to enforce the right which has been granted under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and also all the proceedings that are pending in the court for the above-mentioned right will remain suspended during the period of emergency. Thereupon, several illegal detentions were made including the detention of some most prominent political leaders such as Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and L.K. Advani was detained without any charges and trial.
ISSUE:
Whether a writ petition can be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before any High Court to enforce the Fundamental Rights during the period of National Emergency?
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES:
Petitioner
The petitioners argued that if the State does not release any detainees while the Advisory Council thought that there was no sufficient reason for their undue arrest and, therefore, continued to detain him in violation of Article 22 of the constitution; Habeas corpus and this is the case even if Article 22 is itself a fundamental right. The right to appeal to a court to enforce a right under Article 19 has now been suspended by the President of India by an order made under Article 359(1) of the constitution.
Respondent
The learned counsel of the respondents argued that under the limited scope of Article 359(1) is to remove the restrictions on the legislature’s power so that, during the imposition of the National emergency, it is free to legislate the violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen outlined in the presidential order. They further contended that the arguments from the petitioner were made that there is a law in force governing pre-trial detention, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971. Each arrest warrant approved by the executive branch must comply with the conditions prescribed by the above-mentioned law. The defendants also raid the question that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not the sole depository of the right to life and personal liberty. Finally, it was requested that the preamble of our Constitution speaks of a sovereign democratic republic and that, therefore, senior executives subordinated to the legislature cannot act causing detriment of citizens, except to the extent permitted by the law.
JUDGEMENT
In the judgment, Chief Justice A. N. Ray, M.H. Beg. J, Y.V Chandrachud. J and P.N. Bhagwati. J was for the majority of the judgment and whereas the H.R. Khanna J. was for the descent. After hearing the arguments by both the parties and considering the facts of the case the judges thought that during the time of emergency if any action is taken by the legislature whether it is arbitrary or illegal, the government's action cannot be questioned. This is because in such circumstances the legislature safeguards the life of citizens of the country by using its extraordinary powers, and which are provided to them as an emergency is also an extraordinary factor as said in the constitution.
The purpose and objective of Article 359 (1) were to prevent the enforcement of any Fundamental Right mentioned in the Presidential order, which should be suspended at the time of emergency. Even the application for Habeas Corpus under Article 491 of CrPC cannot be filed simultaneously before the High Court. Another purpose of Article 359(1) was not only to limit the actions of the legislative domain but also the actions of the executive branch.
Document:
