Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case has often been regarded as a distressing moment in India’s judicial history. Decided during the Emergency (1975–77), a period marked by suspended civil liberties under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government, this case enabled the state to infringe on the fundamental right to personal liberty. Citizens were left vulnerable to arbitrary detention, lacking any recourse to judicial review. As digital technologies grow more embedded in modern governance, the lessons from ADM Jabalpur resonate sharply today, reminding us of the delicate balance between state power and individual freedom.
The Emergency: Context and Civil Liberties Crisis
To truly grasp the significance of ADM Jabalpur, it is essential to revisit the Emergency, a period defined by sweeping government control and repression. In 1975, Gandhi invoked Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, declaring a state of emergency due to “internal disturbances.” The decision catalyzed mass censorship, widespread arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), and an extensive crackdown on political dissent. Notably, the Allahabad High Court had recently invalidated Gandhi’s election to Parliament, a ruling that created political instability and contributed to the emergency declaration.
It was against this backdrop that the Supreme Court, in ADM Jabalpur, restricted the right to habeas corpus—a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary imprisonment. Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent stands as a rare beacon of judicial courage in an otherwise compromised ruling, asserting that life and liberty could not be suspended even if Article 21 was suspended. His dissent has since become a revered statement on the judiciary’s duty to protect core constitutional values.
The Judiciary’s Retreat from Protecting Rights
The decision in ADM Jabalpur allowed unrestrained state power, casting a shadow over the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual freedoms. The suspension of habeas corpus opened the door to state overreach, setting a worrisome precedent. Comparatively, Commonwealth nations faced similar challenges but responded differently. For instance, the UK Supreme Court’s decision in R (Evans) v. Attorney General (2015) stressed accountability and transparency even when the state resists disclosing information. Similarly, South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitutional Court, in Minister of Home Affairs v. NICRO (2004), defended prisoners’ right to vote, highlighting a stark contrast in judicial approaches.
The ADM Jabalpur ruling reveals a judiciary that appeared more aligned with executive interests than with protecting constitutional rights. The Evans and NICRO cases underscore how independent courts act as bastions of democracy, counteracting state overreach—a role ADM Jabalpur failed to fulfill.
Post-Emergency: Judicial Rehabilitation and Revival
Following the Emergency, India’s judiciary embarked on a journey to restore its role as the protector of personal liberties. The landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decision in 1978 redefined Article 21’s scope, asserting that any “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable. This ruling effectively overturned ADM Jabalpur’s narrow interpretation of personal liberty, paving the way for a new era of judicial activism, where courts began actively defending individual freedoms against governmental overreach.
In 2017, the Supreme Court formally rejected ADM Jabalpur when it declared privacy a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud candidly labeled ADM Jabalpur an “aberration in constitutional jurisprudence,” affirming that personal liberty and human dignity are inseparable. This reversal exemplified a judiciary committed to preventing a repeat of the mistakes made during the Emergency and reinforced its role in upholding democratic principles.
The Digital Age: New Challenges to Liberty
Today, in the digital era, individual liberty faces unprecedented threats. State surveillance has intensified, with the Aadhaar biometric program serving as a prime example. Although Aadhaar was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court placed strict limitations on its usage to protect individual privacy and prevent misuse. In Internet Freedom Foundation v. State of Kerala (2021), the judiciary reaffirmed its commitment to balancing civil rights with national security, especially in the realm of government surveillance.
However, the cautionary tale of ADM Jabalpur remains relevant as digital authoritarianism and state surveillance expand. Courts must actively preserve privacy rights and protect citizens from the misuse of digital tools by the state. The challenge lies in ensuring that constitutional protections evolve to address new realities, as privacy concerns and state surveillance intensify in the digital age.
Conclusion: Charting a Path Forward
Though ADM Jabalpur remains a controversial chapter, its legacy has, paradoxically, spurred positive judicial reforms that protect civil liberties. The Supreme Court’s rejection of ADM Jabalpur in K.S. Puttaswamy was a landmark moment in the evolution of India’s judicial philosophy. Yet, as India faces emerging threats in the digital realm, the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual freedoms must remain vigilant and adaptive. To uphold its democratic principles, India must ensure that the errors of ADM Jabalpur are not repeated, especially as technology transforms governance and surveillance capabilities.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.