Authored By: Ritika Priyadarshini
Soa National Institute of Law
CASE NAME: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VS SHIVKNT SHUKLA 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172
COURT NAME: THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH: A.N. RAY, HANS RAJ KHANNA, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28TH APRIL,1976
PARTIES INVOLVED: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR (PETITIONER) AND SHIVKANT SHUKLA (RESPONDENT)
INTRODUCTION
In the case of ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) which is popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case which also has most controversial judgement in Indian constitutions. It happened during the time of emergency which was declared by the Indira Gandhi, P.M., where she suspended several fundamental rights under Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The state filed before the Supreme Court that whether an individual detained at the time of emergency could apply for judicial remedy using habeas corpus under Article 226 even after the suspension of Article 21 which states right to life and liberty by Article 359(1) of the Indian Constitution which states Presidential Order. In this case the limits of executive power were tested and prevention of fundamental rights at the time of national crisis. By a 4: 1 majority the Supreme Court held the position of government ruling that at the time of emergency an individual has no capacity to appear in the court for implementation of Article 21 and 226 of Indian Constitution. But Justice Khanna dissent became a judicial support in the landmark judgement, proclaiming that the Article 21 of Indian Constitution which states right to life and liberty cannot be suspended even during emergency. This case brings evolution in Constitution of India because it shows the conflict between the individual liberty and state security and also afterwards significant reforms in constitutions were also made like 44th Amendment Act of 1978 and K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case overruled the ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case which states that fundamental rights life Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of Indian Constitution cannot be suspended even during the emergency.
FACTS
When the Emergency was declared in 1975, to detain multiple individuals without trail, targeting to suppress arguments and to maintain public order the Government of India invoked extensive powers under the ‘Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA)’. Shivkant Shukla and others who were detained filed habeas corpus petition which challenged the validity of preventive detention. They argued that detention violated their fundamental rights under Constitution of India which guarantee ‘protection of life and liberty under Article 21’ and ‘Article 226’ which permits the High Court to file writ petition to prevent these rights. In the petition it contented that even during the time of emergency these Article 21 and Article 226 cannot be suspended and the judicial should look after this detention.
The Government’s response was highly based on the presidential order under Article 359(1) of Indian Constitution which allows the suspension of fundamental rights during the time of emergency. Whether this suspension denied the courts the authority to consider habeas corpus petitions was the main point of disagreement. The administration contended that the suspension essentially eliminated the ability to petition the courts against unlawful detentions, making it unlawful for the judiciary to step in and provide the inmates with relief. This argument raised serious concerns about how to strike a balance between individual liberties and state security during emergencies by effectively placing the executive’s directives and powers during the Emergency outside judicial review. Since the suspension essentially eliminated the power to petition the courts against unwarranted detentions, the government contended that it was unlawful for the judiciary to step in and provide the offenders with relief. Because of this rationale, the orders of executive and powers at the time of emergency were efficiently exempt from judicial review, which created major issues regarding how to strike a balance between state security and individual liberty in times of crisis.
ISSUES
- According to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) was suspended at the time of Emergency, here the question was whether an individual held under MISA may bring a habeas corpus petition under Article 226. The Court stated that they were unable to do so because the suspension order protected the use of judicial remedies.
- The constitutionality of the President’s order suspending Article 21 was at issue. People momentarily lost their ability to seek protection for their personal liberty since the Supreme Court affirmed it.
- The question of judicial review during an emergency was how far the courts could become involved. The Court determined that government activities were mostly outside the court’s jurisdiction and that judicial review of detentions was suspended.
- The petitioners claimed that MISA infringed upon fundamental rights, but the Court maintained the law’s legality, arguing that since Article 21 was suspended during the Emergency, such limitations were acceptable.
- According to the Court, Article 21 may be suspended in times of emergency. The right to life and liberty, according to Justice Khanna, is a fundamental human right that cannot be violated in any situation.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
According to the petitioners, even in an emergency, the fundamental right to life and personal freedom guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be violated. They claimed that the government’s preventive detentions without judicial review were unlawful and that these rights are inherent and unalienable.
They further argued that because judicial review is essential to upholding the rule of law, the courts should retain the authority to grant habeas corpus writs even if the President suspended fundamental rights under Article 359(1), including Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22.
Additionally, they contended that courts should always have the ability to review preventative detention since it violates the Constitution and erodes democracy to grant the government unbridled authority in times of emergency.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The State contended that in order to preserve public order and safeguard national security, the Constitution permits the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency, including the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.
According to the argument, the President’s decision under Article 359(1) lawfully prevented persons from requesting that the courts implement Article 21, which meant that habeas corpus petitions against preventive detentions could not be heard by the courts.
In order to avert threats to the safety of the country, the government also stated that the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was a legitimate law that permitted authorities to hold individuals based on intelligence reports.
JUDGEMENT
‘In the 1976 case of ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, the Supreme Court ruled by a majority of 4:1’ in favour of the government’s order under ‘Article 359(1)’ suspending the implementation of Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and ‘226 (high courts’ authority to issue writs for emergencies)’. The majority ruled that people could not use MISA to file habeas corpus petitions against detentions during this time. As a result, inmates had no legal means of contesting unauthorised arrests, which was viewed as a serious violation of civil freedoms and gave the government unbridled authority, drawing harsh criticism for encouraging authoritarianism.
Justice Khanna was the solely judge who disagreed. He highlights that right to life and liberty is fundamental and cannot be removed even during the time of emergency. He also highlights the judicial review is the most important part which required to be prevent from the misuse of power and protect the law.
Afterwards, the ADM Jabalpur decision was overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017). The Supreme Court in this landmark case declared that right to privacy is a very important part of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. According to the Court, these rights are essential and cannot be restricted or infringed upon, not even in times of emergency. In order to preserve democracy and human dignity, this ruling reiterated the significance of individual rights and the necessity of constant judicial examination of governmental authority.
RATIO DECIDENDI
At the time of emergency the majority, (Justice P.N. Bhagwati and others) permits that the right to life and liberty can be suspended under constitutional provisions and the judiciary has no rights and powers to address the writ petitions for habeas corpus during the order of suspension is on force. But Justice Khanna disagreed with this and highlights that right to life and liberty cannot be suspended even during emergency by the state as judicial is the bedrock of democracy.
CONCLUSION
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case has one of the most controversial judgements in the Indian history. The Supreme Court suspended the Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of Indian Constitution at the time of emergency and supported the government of India, protecting the individual from challenging unfair detention. But Justice Khanna disagreed on the judgement which states that Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Indian Constitution is very basic and cannot be suspended even during the time of emergency. This decision was overruled by K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India case and in the 44th Amendment Act it was made sure that Article 21 cannot be suspended even during the emergency. This case is important as it reminds us the need of protection of fundamental rights and also maintain the balance between the power of state and freedom of an individual in a democratic country.
REFERENCE(S):
WEBSITE:
- ‘Summary of Recent judgement’ https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/ADM-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla> accessed October 27, 2025
- ‘Summary of Recent judgement’ https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/ADM-jabalpur-v-shivkant-shukla> accessed October 28, 2025
ACTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
- Constitutional of India, art 21
- Constitutional of India, art 226
- Constitutional of India, art359(1)
- Constitutional of India, art 226
