What was the main question in ADM Jabalpur?

Whether a person detained under MISA could move a High Court for habeas corpus during the Emergency when enforcement of fundamental rights stood suspended.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

By 4:1, the Court held that habeas corpus to enforce Article 21 was not maintainable during the Emergency due to the Presidential Order under Article 359(1).

Who wrote the famous dissent?

Justice H. R. Khanna dissented, insisting that liberty cannot be at the mercy of executive satisfaction even in an Emergency.

Why is this case important today?

It is a cautionary tale on executive power. Later cases like Maneka Gandhi restored and expanded Article 21 protection.

Which rights were affected by the Presidential Order?

Enforcement of Articles 14, 20 and 21 (through habeas corpus) was blocked; detainees could not challenge detention on fundamental-right grounds.

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

Zero-jargon, classroom-style explainer of the Habeas Corpus case during the Emergency—crisp facts, clean issues, clear judgment, and exam-ready takeaways.

Supreme Court of India 1976 A. N. Ray (CJI), M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati; H. R. Khanna (dissent) (1976) 2 SCC 521 Constitutional Law • Habeas Corpus • Emergency ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 23 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

During the 1975 Emergency, many political leaders were detained under MISA without trial.

A Presidential Order under Article 359(1) blocked courts from enforcing certain fundamental rights.

By 4:1, the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus petitions to enforce Article 21 were not maintainable.

Justice H. R. Khanna dissented, defending personal liberty even during Emergency.

Issues

Can a detainee file a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 during Emergency when enforcement of rights is suspended under Article 359(1)?
If yes, how far can courts review detention orders issued under MISA when a Presidential Order is in force?

Rules

Article 359(1) lets the President suspend the right to move any court to enforce specified fundamental rights during an Emergency.
Majority view: Article 21 protection is workable only through the Constitution; when its enforcement is suspended, courts cannot issue habeas corpus to test the detention on fundamental-right grounds.
Effect: During Emergency, executive detention under MISA was largely insulated from fundamental-right review.

Facts (Timeline)

June 1975: National Emergency proclaimed for “internal disturbance”.
Art. 359(1) Order: Enforcement of Articles 14, 20, 21, 22 restricted; mass detentions under MISA.
1975–76: High Courts entertained habeas corpus and often sided with detainees.
Appeals: Union challenged these orders in the Supreme Court—this became the Habeas Corpus case.

Arguments

Appellants (State)

Art. 359(1) bars courts from enforcing listed fundamental rights; hence no habeas corpus for Art. 21 breach.
MISA detentions are based on executive satisfaction suited to Emergency needs.
Public safety overrides individual claims in crisis; ordinary safeguards must yield.

Respondents (Detainees)

Courts retain power to check illegal or malafide detention.
Personal liberty is basic; Art. 21 cannot be reduced to executive will.
Suspension of enforcement ≠ suspension of the right itself; some judicial review must survive.

Judgment (4:1)

The Supreme Court held that, during the Emergency and under the Presidential Order, a detainee could not seek habeas corpus to enforce Article 21. The majority accepted the State’s position that public safety during Emergency allowed this curb on enforceability. Justice Khanna dissented, asserting that liberty cannot be hostage to executive satisfaction.

Judgment illustration for ADM Jabalpur case

Ratio Decidendi

When a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspends enforcement of Article 21, courts cannot entertain habeas corpus to challenge detention on fundamental-right grounds.
Liberty was treated as a legal creation enforceable through constitutional mechanisms; when enforcement is blocked, the remedy fails.

Why It Matters

Shows the danger of unchecked executive power in emergencies.

Sparked strong debate on the nature of Article 21; later decisions (e.g., Maneka Gandhi) expanded due process protection.

Justice Khanna’s dissent became a landmark in civil-liberty jurisprudence.

Key Takeaways

Emergency + Article 359(1) = no court enforcement of listed fundamental rights.
Habeas corpus was effectively unavailable for testing MISA detentions on Article 21 grounds.
Dissent underlined that liberty should not depend solely on executive satisfaction.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “EMERGENCY LOCK: 3-5-9 shuts 2-1.”

Emergency triggers the lock.
Article 359 “shuts” enforcement.
Article 21 claim via habeas corpus can’t pass.

3-Step Hook: Context 1975 Emergency → Mechanism Art. 359 order → Effect No habeas corpus to enforce Art. 21.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Maintainability of habeas corpus under Article 226 to enforce Article 21 during Emergency under an Article 359(1) order.
Rule	Article 359(1) suspends the right to move courts for enforcement of specified fundamental rights.
Application	Since enforcement of Article 21 stood suspended, challenges to MISA detentions via habeas corpus could not proceed on fundamental-right grounds.
Conclusion	Habeas corpus petitions were not maintainable; majority judgment 4:1. Justice Khanna dissented.

Glossary

Habeas Corpus: A writ asking the authority to bring a detained person to court and justify the detention.
MISA: Maintenance of Internal Security Act, used for preventive detention during the Emergency.
Article 359(1): Allows suspension of enforcement of certain fundamental rights during an Emergency.