Introduction

Many people view the National Emergency of 1975 among the worst periods in Indian governance. For the sake of achieving individual political benefit, fundamental liberties were stripped away, and the State operated at its discretion and pleasure. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs. Shiv Kant Shukla and others is a case that arose when the Apex Court was asked to rule on this important issue. In this particular case, the executive order restricting citizens' fundamental liberties, including Articles 14 and 21 under Article 359(1), and the opposing party leaders' sudden incarceration under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act were contested.

The fact that Justice H. R. Khanna was the sole judge to dissent and support the primacy of fundamental liberties makes this case particularly well-known. The remaining judges made the decision that fundamental rights would be denied for the duration of the emergency. A few claim that it was only a restricted interpretation of the law and others that it was motivated by fear of a mighty central government but nevertheless this ruling is a stain on the Indian the legal system.

This judgement is known for the selfless dedication of Justice HR Khanna towards the public good and his commitment towards providing justice to the people. Justice Khanna side-lined his personal interest and did not bow down to the tyranny of the then Government. This dissenting opinion cost him the post of the Chief Justice of India as he was the next in line to become the Chief Justice of India but he was superseded by his junior Justice MH Beg.

History, Backdrop and Facts of the Case

The historic ruling in ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla was handed down almost forty-four years ago. This case began with the verdict rendered by the High Court of Allahabad in the historic State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain case. In the latter case, the Raj Narain was opposing Indira Gandhi's candidacy and subsequent win in the Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, constituency. Judge Sinha of the Allahabad High Court ruled that Indira Gandhi's election was invalid due to her involvement in unethical activities. The Supreme Court issued her a restricted stay after she filed an appeal. Indira Gandhi, fearing for her post as prime minister, asked then-President Fakruddin Ali Ahmad to proclaim an emergency in accordance with Article 352(1). By virtue of his authority under Article 359 (suspension of the enforcement of basic rights during emergencies), the President issued an executive order limiting people' freedom to use the judicial system to protect their basic freedoms under Article 21. Under the guise of "preventive detention," anyone deemed to be a political danger to the government and its leaders during this emergency period was detained without being given the opportunity to defend themselves.

During this time, a number of prominent opposition figures were arrested, including Jay Prakash Narayan, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, and Morarji Desai. High Courts received many petitions contesting the detention. Indira Gandhi was forced to release the captives by the majority of the petitioners. One of these petitions resulted in the historic ADM Jabalpur ruling. Because the petition of habeas corpus is presented in the High Court or Supreme Court in situations of illegal incarceration, it is also known as the "Habeas Corpus Case". Because it restricted basic rights, the most significant aspect of the Indian Constitution, this case is also known as the "Darkest Hour" of the Indian court.

Issues

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution can be maintained to enforce the right to personal liberty under Article 21 during an emergency proclaimed under Article 359(1)?

To what extent a presidential order would be subject to judicial review?

Majority Judgement

The majority comprising Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, and Justice P.N. Bhagwati, rendered the decision. The majority judgment's principal conclusions were the following:

According to the majority, no writ petition under Article 226 or any other writ, order, or directive opposing an order to detain under the emergency proclamation under Article 359(1) may be filed in the High Court. This indicated that, under the emergency, the ability to approach the judiciary to uphold basic rights—aside from Articles 20 and 21—was denied.

The court confirmed the constitutionality of clauses 8 and 9 of Section 16 of the MISA, 1971.

The majority underlined that every government measure must be carried out following the legislation that the legislature enacted.

The court determined that because the MISA, 1971 did not provide the court such authority, it lacked the authority to examine the legality of a detention order.

The majority emphasized how Article 358 and Article 359 differ from one another. Only in times of emergency can Article 358 restrict Article 19, enabling parliament to enact legislation that violates Article 19. However, Article 359 halts the implementation of basic rights and has the authority to halt legal actions while such rights are being implemented.

The majority opinion stated that the Basic Structure doctrine cannot be applied to establish a contradiction with the provisions of the Constitution.

The court accepted that Article 21 is the exclusive custodian of the right to life and personal liberty.

The Dissenting Opinion of Justice HR Khanna

The lone differing view in this matter was provided by Justice Khanna. He disagreed with the majority opinion's judgment on every point. He declined to assert that Article 21 is the only source of the Right to Life, instead, he argued that "the idea that nobody can be stripped of his life and liberty without the sanction of law was not gifted by the Constitution" and "the sanctity of life and liberty was not something new when the Constitution was drafted." It existed and was in effect before the Constitution took effect; it was an essential consequence of the idea about the sanctity of life and liberty. The premise that nobody may be stripped of their life or liberty without the authorization of legislation and the notion of the sanctity of life and liberty are basically two sides of a single coin.

He maintained that as Article 226 is an essential element of the Constitution, it is impossible to dispute the authority to look into the situation and grant a writ of habeas corpus. Citing Ambedkar's opinions from the Constituent Assembly discussions, he went on to say that it is a means of guaranteeing judicial review of executive actions and preserving the system of balance of power.

Lastly, he said, "The court merely makes sure the arresting agencies follow the statute of preventative custody while hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Disagreeing with the majority view he opined that "legal safeguards against the arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty must be used to cushion the adverse effects of the vast and broad authority of preventive detention that authorities possess on people in order to prevent the principles of the rule of law from losing their meaning." He underlined that no one's fundamental, intrinsic right to life and individual freedom may be violated by the state in any way.

Analysis

In this scenario, the Supreme Court noted that Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty against unlawful state deprivation and the event that Article 21 is suspended by an emergency declared in accordance with Article 359, the Court cannot contest the legitimacy or validity of the government's action. Since Article 358 suspends all rights under Part III but Article 359 does not, Article 358 is far more expansive than Article 359. The Executive is granted distinctive authority and status under Article 359 (1), but this does not compromise the fundamental elements of the autonomy of the separation of powers, which results in a system of checks and balances and restricted Executive discretion. The denial of these rights will simply give legislators more authority, which might lead to the creation of legislation that violate basic rights. This is because the State and the Executive have an improper relationship. This action should not be seen as an exercise of the Executive's "power" or authority. A government may only act in favour or against its citizens to the degree permitted by law, and in this instance, it was a serious abuse of authority for the individual's own political advantage. Nothing in Article 162 indicates that the State's authority "increases" from its initial authority during the Emergency. Furthermore, the State may only make a detention if all requirements are met and the accused offense is covered by Section 3 of the MISA. The State does not have the authority to detain someone if any requirements are not met. The Supreme Court's ruling is regarded as the most incorrect ruling in history.

Justice Khanna's differing view is still considered more valuable than the majority ruling. Justice Khanna only referenced Makkhan Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein he observed that "the detainee's right to seek relief from any court in that regard is not cancelled since it is outside Article 359(1) therefore beyond the presidential directive itself, if in challenging the legitimacy of his incarceration order, the person being detained claims any right beyond the rights stated in the order." Consider a scenario in which a detainee has been held against the required Act requirements.

In this situation, the detainee may be able to argue that the Act's required clauses have been broken, making his incarceration unlawful. Such a claim is not covered by Article 359(1), and the presidential directive cannot impair the detainee's ability to request his liberty on this basis. Article 21 termination would essentially amount to loss of the right to life and liberty, which is a violation of both the fundamental right and the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which India is a signatory.

Conclusion

The dissenting opinion of Justice H.R. Khanna in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla case stands as a monumental testament to judicial courage and the unwavering commitment to fundamental liberties. In a period when the very essence of democracy was under threat, Justice Khanna's dissent highlighted the sanctity of life and liberty as inherent rights that transcend constitutional provisions. His refusal to succumb to the prevailing political pressure and his insistence on judicial review as a cornerstone of the balance of power underscored his dedication to justice and the rule of law.

Justice Khanna's perspective was rooted in the belief that the fundamental principles of life and liberty existed before and independent of the Constitution, embodying the universal values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His dissent, though not the majority opinion, has been lauded for its foresight and integrity. It serves as a powerful reminder that the judiciary's role is to safeguard the rights of individuals against arbitrary state actions, even in times of national crisis.

The legacy of Justice Khanna's dissent continues to inspire legal scholars, jurists, and advocates for human rights, symbolizing the enduring struggle for justice and the protection of civil liberties. His principled stance is a beacon of hope and a call to uphold the values of democracy and the rule of law, regardless of the circumstances.