Case study on ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla

 

The case of Additional District Magistrate of  Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla also known as Habeas Corpus Case.  

FACTS:

On 26th June, 1975 Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi imposed National Emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution on the ground of Internal Disturbance & conspiracy against the government. The constitution of India guaranteed rights of the citizens & enforce them through various institution especially Supreme Court. 

The actual reason behind Imposing National Emergency under article 352 of the Indian Constitution by then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi is her insecurities that she lose on her Prime Minister post. Before imposing emergency Allahabad High Court in its verdict barred Smt. Indira Gandhi from contesting any election or holding her office for the following next 6 years as she was convicted for manipulating elections. Therefore, in order to protect her Prime Minister post she imposed National Emergency on the fake grounds of internal disturbance on 26th June 1975. 

As soon as  National Emergency was imposed the government also invoked Article 359 of the Indian Constitution which authorize the President of India to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during National Emergency. The government also suspend article 14 (right to equality). article 21 (right to life with personal liberty) and article 22 (protection against detention in certain cases) of the Indian Constitution. The suspension of rights initiated the process of taking opposition leaders, writers, critics, cartoonist, journalist & prominent people in the society who act as a torchbearer for the citizen of the country or who critic the government for their action influenced people to act against dictator regime of Smt. Indira Gandhi government during the period of emergency into custody under Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). The government also impose censorship on the print & telecommunication media so that citizen are unaware of the facts that government don’t want to disclose.  

JUDGEMENT:

Those who are aggrieved by the government actions move to High Courts of their respective states against the government order but most of them favour the government order. The act of supporting arbitrary decision of government by the Indian Judiciary is because of getting personal gains from the government by promoting them to higher offices in the judiciary. This act of judiciary termed as “emansculation of judiciary” where judiciary deprive in strength or spirit against the government. The government appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla. The Supreme Court held that no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under article 226 of the constitution before High Court for Habeas Corpus or any other writ. The Habeas Corpus Criticized for favoring government instead of standing up for individual liberty. Majority of judgments found guilty of aiding & abetting the lust of power of state. Justice Venkatachaliah in his speech remarked that the majority of the judgement during1975 National Emergency confined to the dustbin of history.

As soon as emergency ends Supreme Court of India change its stance & make article 21 a permanent character along with Article 14 & Article 19 (freedom of Speech).