ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla
Rule established
Per Khanna J (dissenting, now accepted as correct): the rule of law exists prior to and independent of the Constitution; it cannot be suspended even during Emergency.
Facts
- During the Internal Emergency proclaimed on 25 June 1975, the President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22
- Several persons were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) without being told the grounds of detention
- High Courts of nine states entertained habeas corpus petitions and granted relief to detainees
- The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that during suspension of Article 21, no person has locus standi to challenge detention
- A Constitution Bench of five judges heard the matter
Issues
- Whether any person has the locus standi to move a petition for habeas corpus during the period of Emergency when the right to enforce Article 21 is suspended under Article 359(1)
- Whether the rule of law and the right to life exist independent of Article 21
Held
- Majority (Ray CJ, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati JJ): During the Presidential Order under Article 359, no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus or any other writ to challenge detention. Article 21 is the sole repository of the right to life and liberty; when it is suspended, no right remains enforceable.
- Dissent (Khanna J): Even in the absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of life or liberty without the authority of law. The rule of law is not a gift of Part III; it exists apart from it. Life and liberty are inalienable natural rights.
- Khanna J's dissent is now accepted as the correct position of law following the 44th Amendment (1978) which bars suspension of Articles 20 and 21 even during Emergency.
Ratio Decidendi
The majority treated fundamental rights as the sole source of enforceable liberties, collapsing natural rights into positive constitutional text. Khanna J's ratio: the right to life precedes the Constitution; Article 21 recognizes it, does not create it. The rule of law survives even when its textual expression is temporarily suspended. This dissent became the foundation of the 44th Amendment's irreversible protection of Article 21.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite as the most significant dissent in Indian constitutional history
- Use in any question on Emergency provisions, suspension of fundamental rights, or Article 359
- Contrast with Maneka Gandhi (1978) which expanded Article 21 post-Emergency
- Essential in essays on judicial independence, rule of law, and natural rights theory
- The 44th Amendment (inserting the proviso to Article 359) is the legislative adoption of Khanna J's dissent
Source
Source: AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1207
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.