Comment on the Judgement Delivered By Justice H R Khanna in ADM Jabalpur case and its impact on the growth of Rule of Law
Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent in the 1976 Supreme Court case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case) stands as a monumental assertion of judicial independence and the rule of law in India. This case, decided during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, tested the resilience of constitutional safeguards against executive overreach.
🧾 The ADM Jabalpur Case: Background and Majority Judgment
In June 1975, a national emergency was declared in India, leading to the suspension of certain fundamental rights under Article 359 of the Constitution. Subsequently, the government detained numerous individuals under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). Shivkant Shukla, a journalist, filed a writ petition seeking his release, challenging the legality of his detention.
The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, ruled by a 4:1 majority that during an emergency, the right to move any court for enforcement of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended. The majority held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the courts powerless to review the legality of detentions, effectively allowing the executive to detain individuals without judicial scrutiny.
⚖️ Justice H.R. Khanna’s Dissent: A Stand for the Rule of Law
Justice H.R. Khanna, the lone dissenter, articulated a profound and principled dissent. He argued that the right to life and liberty is inherent to human existence and cannot be suspended, even during an emergency. Khanna emphasized that the suspension of Article 21 affected only the procedural enforcement of the right, not its substantive existence. He famously stated,
“What is at stake is the rule of law… the question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the Court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute.”
Khanna's dissent underscored that the judiciary must remain the guardian of individual rights, ensuring that even in times of national crisis, the rule of law prevails.
📜 Impact on the Growth of the Rule of Law
Justice Khanna’s dissent had a lasting impact on the Indian legal landscape:
Judicial Independence: His stance highlighted the importance of an independent judiciary in upholding constitutional values, even at the cost of personal advancement.
Public Perception: Khanna's courage resonated with the public, earning him widespread respect and admiration as a symbol of judicial integrity.
Subsequent Overruling: The majority judgment in ADM Jabalpur was eventually overruled by the Supreme Court in the 2017 Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, which declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right, reaffirming the principles of justice and liberty.
📚 Related Landmark Cases
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This case established the "Basic Structure Doctrine," holding that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments. Justice Khanna was part of the majority, reinforcing the idea that the Constitution's core principles must remain intact.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This judgment expanded the scope of Article 21, ruling that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad. It emphasized that any law affecting this right must be just, fair, and reasonable.
3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution's balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is part of its basic structure. This reinforced the idea that neither can be destroyed or emasculated.
4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi but struck down certain provisions of the 39th Amendment as unconstitutional, asserting the judiciary's role in reviewing constitutional amendments.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
This case reaffirmed the power of judicial review, holding that the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to review legislative actions is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
🏛️ Conclusion
Justice H.R. Khanna's dissent in ADM Jabalpur remains a cornerstone in the edifice of Indian constitutional law. It serves as a reminder that the judiciary must act as a bulwark against arbitrary state action, ensuring that the rule of law is upheld even in the most challenging times. His legacy continues to inspire and guide the Indian judiciary in its commitment to justice and liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments