282:"Justice Khanna was clearly right in holding that the recognition of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution does not denude the existence of that right, apart from it nor can there be a fatuous assumption that in adopting the Constitution the people of India surrendered the most precious aspect of the human persona, namely, life, liberty and freedom to the State on whose mercy these rights would depend. Such a construct is contrary to the basic foundation of the rule of law which imposes restraints upon the powers vested in the modern state when it deals with the liberties of the individual.
279:"The right to life has existed even before the advent of the Constitution. In recognising the right, the Constitution does not become the sole repository of the right. It would be preposterous to suggest that a democratic Constitution without a Bill of Rights would leave individuals governed by the State without either the existence of the right to live or the means of enforcement of the right. The right to life being inalienable to each individual, it existed prior to the Constitution and continued in force under Article of the Constitution.
29:
269:"The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. These rights are, as recognised in Kesavananda Bharati, primordial rights. They constitute rights under natural law.
224:. Bhagwati was criticized for these change of stands, favouring the ruling government, which were deemed as to have been taken to better his career prospects. Bhagwati later in 2011 agreed with popular opinion that this judgement was short-sighted and apologised.
272:
The human element in the life of the individual is integrally founded on the sanctity of life. Dignity is associated with liberty and freedom. No civilised state can contemplate an encroachment upon life and personal liberty without the authority of
252:(rationale behind the judgment) that all rights under our Constitution are a positive creation of law rather than merely recognised greatly increases the power of the State to do what it likes with them."
380:
167:
174:
pertaining to the suspension of
Articles 21 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in the event of a National Emergency. This controversial judgment of
236:
was the sole dissenter among the five judges. In retaliation for his dissent, he was later overlooked during the appointment of the Chief
Justice.
321:
346:
446:
188:) can be suspended in the interest of the State. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance of attached to
264:
delivered by a nine judge, constitutional bench of the
Supreme court. At the paragraph 119 of the majority opinion the Court had ruled:
424:
418:
201:
221:
217:
189:
285:"The power of the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus is a precious and undeniable feature of the rule of law."
451:
408:
381:"Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place"
261:
153:
73:
276:"Neither life nor liberty are bounties conferred by the State nor does the Constitution create these rights.
413:
171:
39:
28:
213:
179:
193:
182:
from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e.
430:
354:
100:
431:
The Wire: An
Outrageous Emergency-Era Supreme Court Judgment That Still Stands, Technically
260:
The ADM Jabalpur case was overruled on the doctrinal grounds concerning the rights by the
248:, "the judgment has been viewed as a stain on the legacy of the court for many years. The
233:
205:
96:
197:
175:
104:
440:
209:
184:
419:
Law Times
Journal: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) SCC 521 - Case Summary
304:"Additional District Magistrate, ... Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976"
196:. Going against the previous decisions of High Courts, the bench which included
92:
88:
303:
119:
A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P. N. Bhagwati and Hans Raj Khanna
220:
was formed and again backed Gandhi when she got re-elected to form
322:"A Chief Justice of India says "I am sorry" but 30 years too late"
414:
Legalbites.in: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla - Habeas corpus
425:
LawSisto.com: Case
Analysis: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
50:
Additional
District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
320:
Jayan, Shanmugham D; Sudheesh, Raghul (16 September 2011).
375:
373:
371:
409:
Lawlex.org: Case summary ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
127:
A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud and P. N. Bhagwati
139:
131:
123:
115:
110:
84:
79:
68:
63:
55:
45:
35:
21:
16:1976 Supreme Court of India case on The Emergency
266:
200:concluded by a majority 4:1 in favour of the
8:
208:was opposed to it. Bhagwati openly praised
421:(12 July 2018, Chiranjeeb Prateek Mohanty)
27:
18:
347:"Interview with Justice Bhagwati (2011)"
315:
313:
295:
7:
216:period, later criticized her when
14:
164:ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
22:ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
1:
427:(Surya J M, 15 December 2020)
202:then Indira Gandhi government
447:Supreme Court of India cases
262:Puttaswamy v. Union of India
154:Puttuswamy v. Union of India
74:Puttuswamy v. Union of India
244:According to Ajay Kumar of
218:Janata Party-led government
468:
151:
144:
26:
351:Video on www.myLaw.net
288:
172:Supreme Court of India
40:Supreme Court of India
204:while only Justice
194:Indian Constitution
222:government in 1980
190:Fundamental Rights
168:landmark judgement
178:, decreed during
161:
160:
69:Subsequent action
459:
452:1976 in case law
397:
396:
394:
392:
387:. 29 August 2017
377:
366:
365:
363:
362:
353:. Archived from
343:
337:
336:
334:
332:
317:
308:
307:
300:
101:Y.V. Chandrachud
80:Court membership
59:AIR 1976 SC 1207
31:
19:
467:
466:
462:
461:
460:
458:
457:
456:
437:
436:
405:
400:
390:
388:
379:
378:
369:
360:
358:
345:
344:
340:
330:
328:
319:
318:
311:
302:
301:
297:
293:
287:
284:
283:
281:
280:
278:
277:
275:
274:
271:
270:
258:
250:ratio decidendi
242:
234:Hans Raj Khanna
230:
206:Hans Raj Khanna
147:
135:Hans Raj Khanna
97:Hans Raj Khanna
17:
12:
11:
5:
465:
463:
455:
454:
449:
439:
438:
435:
434:
433:(28 June 2017)
428:
422:
416:
411:
404:
401:
399:
398:
367:
338:
309:
294:
292:
289:
267:
257:
254:
241:
238:
229:
226:
198:P. N. Bhagwati
159:
158:
149:
148:
145:
142:
141:
137:
136:
133:
129:
128:
125:
121:
120:
117:
113:
112:
108:
107:
105:P. N. Bhagwati
86:
85:Judges sitting
82:
81:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
37:
33:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
464:
453:
450:
448:
445:
444:
442:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
406:
402:
386:
382:
376:
374:
372:
368:
357:on 2016-03-22
356:
352:
348:
342:
339:
327:
323:
316:
314:
310:
305:
299:
296:
290:
286:
265:
263:
255:
253:
251:
247:
239:
237:
235:
227:
225:
223:
219:
215:
214:the Emergency
211:
210:Indira Gandhi
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
185:habeas corpus
181:
180:the emergency
177:
176:P.N. Bhagwati
173:
169:
165:
156:
155:
150:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
111:Case opinions
109:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
87:
83:
78:
75:
72:Overruled by
71:
67:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
41:
38:
34:
30:
25:
20:
389:. Retrieved
384:
359:. Retrieved
355:the original
350:
341:
329:. Retrieved
325:
298:
268:
259:
249:
245:
243:
231:
183:
163:
162:
152:
146:Overruled by
140:Laws applied
64:Case history
49:
391:31 December
124:Concurrence
116:Decision by
441:Categories
361:2021-01-25
331:25 January
326:First Post
291:References
192:under the
385:Firstpost
256:Overruled
246:Firstpost
240:Reception
232:Justice
93:M.H. Beg
89:A.N. Ray
56:Citation
403:Sources
228:Dissent
212:during
170:of the
132:Dissent
166:was a
157:(2017)
36:Court
393:2021
333:2021
273:law.
103:and
443::
383:.
370:^
349:.
324:.
312:^
99:,
95:,
91:,
395:.
364:.
335:.
306:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
