A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas
Corpus case.
FAC TS:
On 25 June 1975, Emergency was proclaimed by Mrs Indira Gandhi's Government on account
of "internal disturbances". By virtue of Article 358 of the Constitution, the citizens' seven
classic freedoms under Article 19 stood automatically suspended. On 27 June, the President
of India issued an order under Article 359 suspending the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and
22 also. On the night of 25 June and thereafter a large number of persons (mainly political
leaders of opposite parties) were detained under MISA. Many of them were not even informed
of the grounds for their detention. Some of them filed writ petitions in different High Courts
challenging the detention orders as illegal and unconstitutional and praying for the issue of a
writ of habeas corpus. When those petitions came up for hearing, the government raised a
preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petitions on the ground that in asking
for release by writ of habeas corpus, the petitioners (detenus) were in substance claiming that
they had been deprived of their personal liberty in violation of the procedure_established by
law; but that was a plea available to them only under Article 21 of the Constitution and since
enforcement of Article 21 was suspended by the Presidential Order of 27 June 1975, the
petitions were liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The preliminary objection was overruled
for one reason or the other by various High Courts. The governments of the States concerned
(e.g.the Madhya Pradesh Government through the Addl, District Magistrate, Jabalpur) and the
Indian Government filed appeals in the Supreme Court against the decisions of those High
Courts. The case was heard by a five-judge Constitutional Bench consisting of Ray CJ and
Khanna, Beg,Chandrachud and Bhagwati JJ.
ISSUE:
To simplify the point, it may be stated that the narrow issue before hon’ble Supreme Court was
whether there was any "rule of law" in India apart from and irrespective of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
RATIO:
In ADM, Jabalpur, the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 held that during the emergency and
suspension of fundamental rights, no person has locus standi to move any court for a writ of
habeas corpus. As stated elsewhere"", the majority judgment does not lay down correct law.
Fortunately, after the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, rights conferred by Articles 20
and 21 of the Constitution cannot be suspended even during emergency.
MAJORITY BENCH:
The majority of the Bench (Chief Justice Ajit Nath Ray , Mirza Hameedullah Beg, Yeshwant
Vishnu Chandrachud and Prafullachandra Natarwarlal Bhagwati ) answered the issue in the
negative and observed: The Constitution is the mandate. The Constitution is the rule of law.
There cannot be any rule of law other than the constitutional rule of law. There cannot be any
pre-Constitution or post-Constitution rule of law which can run counter to the rule of law
embodied in the Constitution, nor can there be any invocation to any rule of law to nullify the
constitutional provisions during the time of Emergency. Article 2r is our rule of law regarding
life and liberty, No other rule of law can have separate existence as a distinct right. The rule of
law is not merely a catchword or incantation. It is not a law of nature consistent and invariable
at all times and in all circumstances. There cannot be a brooding and omnipotent rule of law
drowning in itseffervescence the emergency provisions of the Constitution.
