ADM JABALPUR V. SHIVKANT SHUKLA (1976) 2 SCC 521 DISHA GUPTA LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Sep 02, 2019, at ,11:49 AM The Bench consisted of: Chief Justice, HR Khanna A.N. Ray Hans Raj Justice Beg M. Hameedullah Y.V.Chandrachud P.N. Bhagwati Historical Background: The said case pertains to the time of Proclamation of Emergency by the then ruling government of Indira Gandhi and Presidential order of the same was issued when the election of Indira Gandhi was termed to be illegal. It all started with the election of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, which had been held to be invalid by the Allahabad High Court. Indira Gandhi lost her election case on June 12, 1975, and on her appeal, in the Supreme Court, she was only granted a conditional stay. As a result, she could neither vote nor speak in the Lok Sabha. Thereby, she chose to declare an emergency as on 25th June 1975. Any person who was considered to be a political threat, or who could politically voice his opposition was detained without trial under Preventive Detention laws, one of which was the dreaded MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). Immediately, thereafter on 25th June 1975, she proclaimed a state of internal Emergency. Most of the eminent opposition leaders including Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and LK Advani were detained without charges and trial. The fundamental right to life and personal liberty and right to equality were suspended. Introduction: The case arose out of contention that whether the right of a person to approach respective High Court gets quashed when his fundamental rights are not given or suppressed, especially Article 14, and 21 during the emergency and enforcement of such rights remain suspended for the period of Proclamation of Emergency in force. The judgment was delivered on April 28th, 1976 by the Constitutional bench of five judges including the then Chief Justice A.N. Ray, out of which four were in favor of a suspension of such right and liberty and one dissenting rejected such contention. This case was infamously called a Habeas Corpus case. The Latin term Habeas Corpus means “you may have the body” and writ of securing a person’s liberty is called Habeas Corpus. Facts of the Case: 25th June 1975- The President in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. 27th June 1975- The exercise of power given by Clause (1) of Article 359 of the constitution were enforced on the people of India and the foreigners, within the right to approach the court to enforce Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 and Article 22 (prevention against detention in certain cases). The presidential order of 27th June 1975 further stated that the same shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any order made before the date of the aforesaid order under clause (1) of Article 359 of the constitution. 29th June 1975- Another order passed by the President and made the ordinance of June 27, 1975, applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir as well. 8th January 1976- There was a notification passed in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution whereby the President declared that the right of any person to move any to court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamations of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the constitution. Issues Raised: Whether, under Proclamation of Emergency after President’s order, can the writ of Habeas Corpus be maintained in High Court by a person challenging his unlawful detention? Was suspension of Article 21 fit under rule of law? Does detenue hold locus standi in Court during the period of Emergency? Judgment: In this case, the four judges Chief Justice A.N. Ray, along with Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati has arrived at the same conclusion, which is that the writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in case of the proclamation of emergency under article 359(1). The four judges said that the court has no authority or powers to challenge if the detention made under sec 16A(9)b (which states no person against whom an order of detention is made or purported to be made under Section 3 shall be entitled to the communication or disclosure of any such ground, information or material as is referred to in clause (a) or the production to him of any document containing such ground, information or material) as under the act it clearly states that the grounds of the detention need not be disclosed hence the court cannot question the state or the executive body to validate the detention. Hence the party does not have locus standi to move to any court to maintaining suit on fundamental rights. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud also said that the executive body must perform in accordance with the law passed by the parliament as it is the basic principle that all activities of the executive must have law supporting its action. He further says that the precedential order issued under article 359(1) does not give clarity regarding disobeying the parliamentary law. Therefore, the state need not furnish the reason for detention. Justice Khanna had a dissenting opinion on the point that during the proclamation of emergency or presidential order under article 359(1) even if the person cannot go to the court of law for the enforcement of fundamental right under the constitutional remedy that does not restrain him from exercising his legal remedy through statute. Also, he denied that article 21 is not the sole repository of right to life and personal liberty even in absence of article 21 in the constitution the state cannot deprive a person of his right to life and personal liberty as this formulates the basic postulate of a civilized society. During the proclamation of emergency article 21 only loses the procedural power but the substantive power of this article is very fundamental and the State does not have the power to deprive any person life and liberty without the authority of law. The Majority judgment held that a person cannot approach the court with the writ of habeas corpus or of any other writ remedy. Also, the court of law does not have the power to look into the validity of detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 as the statue does not give powers to the court the review the validity of the detention.