Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla[1]
5-Judge Bench: A.N. Ray (former CJI), Hans Raj Khanna, M. Hameedullah Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati.
Petitioner: Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur
Respondent: S.S. Shukla etc. etc.
Brief
On 2nd July 1971, MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security) Act was passed by the parliament and replaced the previous ordinance, i.e. ‘Maintenance of Internal Security Ordinance’ on 7th May 1971. The following legislation was so powerful and arbitrary that it gave wide power to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government to search and seize any property and detain any person (including the government or judicial officers) without warrant. Some 1 lakh people were detained without trial during the period of emergency (1975-77).
The 39th constitutional amendment (10th august 1975) placed the MISA Act under the schedule 9 of the Constitution. Any act placed in the 9th schedule was immune from the judicial review. Which meant that the Indian court does not had the power to review the constitutionality of the act. In the states where congress party was not ruling had granted monthly pension to the detainees, who were detained during the time of emergency. Which is still in enforce in many states.
Facts
In the case of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain the Allahabad High Court held that the selection of Indira Gandhi from the Rai Bareli constituency was illegal and hence null and void as she used money and muscle power to win the election. Jts. Jagmohan Lal Sinha called the then Prime Minister into his court has held that she would not fight any election for the next 6 years. To overturn the following judgement, she with the help of president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad declared national emergency. In the year 1975-77 national emergency was declared on the ground of internal security in India u/a 352 of the Constitution. Many opposition leaders were arrested under the MISA.
This was the case of habeas corpus; this writ means to produce the body. Several habeas corpus writs were filled before the Supreme Court. The supreme court combined them all into one and the issue before the court was that during the period of national emergency, fundamental rights could be remain suspended or not.
Article 359(1)
When the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the president may by order declare that the right conferred under part III (except articles 20 and 21)[2] of the constitution and any proceedings pending in the court shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation is in force.
Issues
Do arrests made during such period of National Emergency violate the basic principle of Rule of Law by not allowing a detained person to file a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the ground for detention?
Besides Article 21 is there any other law in the Indian Constitution that protects the personal liberty of a citizen?
Contentions
Petitioner: They argued that during the state of emergency, in order to maintain the decorum in the state certain rights of the citizens are needed to be capped. Whatever appropriate government decide should be considered to be supreme in order to tackle the situational for which the emergency was declared and maintain the internal security at the same time. These rights are cancelled u/a 359 (1) through order of the President of the constitutional provision and hence rule of law is followed.
Respondent: They argued that though the article 359(1) empower the president to suspend the fundamental rights of the citizens but still the natural right and the statutory rights of a citizen shall be protected. These rights cannot be taken away by the executive. The detention of any person will only be valid if it falls u/s 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Therefore, any detention made not in accordance with the procedure established will be deemed ultra-vires. In the following section it is expressly mentioned that the detainee shall be told the grounds of his arrest maximum within 15 days.
Judgement
The court applied the literal rule of interpretation in this case. 4 out of 5 judges (except Js. HR Khanna), held that the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended during the emergency. As the article 359 (1) expressly provides so. Further the court will not have the power to look into the matter on the validity of detention under the impugned act, held during the emergency and the party does not have the locus standi to move to the courts. There is no review available even if the grounds for detention is not communicated or based upon mala fide aspects.
The section 16A(9) was held valid by the Supreme Court and it was a rule of evidence, in which the Courts or the detainee does not have the power to ask the grounds for detention.
The only rule of law which is recognised in the country would be what is deducible from the constitution itself. It should never be found outside or in conflict with the constitution. When the right of personal liberty is based
Dissenting judgement for ‘Rule of Law’
Jts. HR Khanna was the only judge who dissented from the majority and held that the article 21 of the constitution shall not remain suspended even during time of emergency. He said that the rule of law shall also include the judicial review of the arbitrary executive powers. So even when the martial law is in force the courts will still have the power to examine the legality of the act of the executive. If personal liberty or life would remain suspended then there would be no remedy available against deprivation of personal life or liberty by the state even though such deprivation might be arbitrary or in flagrant violation of provision of law.
He noted that “without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning”.
Due Process of Law
The due process of law not only checks that whether the law is duly enacted by the legislature or the concerned body, but also that the law is just, fair and reasonable. If the Supreme Court finds that the law is not fair, it can declare it null and void. This concept is a step further than the rule of law. The first instance would be found in the Magna Carta clause 39. In India, the Supreme Court first establish that ‘procedure established by law’ within the meaning of article 21 of the constitution must be fair, right and just and not arbitrary or oppressive in the Maneka Gandhi v Union of India case (1978). Hence now the procedure established by law has acquired the same sense as the due procedure of law.
Principle of Law
This case is considered as one of the landmark cases in the history of legal system in the country. The case pounders upon the inefficiency that existed in our legal system and the urgent need to change them. The importance of the principle of Rule of Law arose right after this case. Due to the judgment that was passed, various judges were not considerate of the violation of the fundamental rights that are promised by the Indian Constitution itself. Such honorable judges of the Supreme Court decided the matter in a way which only created blunder in the Indian Legal System. ADM Jabalpur shows us how power conferred by a certain person, turned the entire scenario in the country as the four most respectable judges chose to assent to the majority decision. Justice Bhagwati later even stated that he regrets supporting and being a part of the majority and that the view of Justice Khanna was correct and should have been assented to.
Post this decision, in the year 1978, Article 359 was amended through the 44th amendment confirming that Article 20 and Article will not be suspended in the case of National Emergency.
Rule of Law in its basic sense would mean that everything that happens in the country, be it a process, norm or a practice are all governed by law. Thereby law is Supreme to everybody including the citizens and the government as well. This helps in removing arbitrariness in the country and gives each and every citizen an equal stage. This principle has been discussed by several worthy thinkers including Aristotle, Montesquieu and A.V. Dicey amongst others. Whenever any action is taken by the authorities, it can only and only be enforced when it is done legally, making it just for the society and its people.
There are three basic principles in the Rule of Law-
1. Supremacy of Law- In case of punishments and detentions, everything should only and only be done in considerations to law. No detentions or punishments can be made arbitrarily. If anything is done in contravention to the existing rules and laws prescribed, it would be considered void.
2. Equality before Law- Article 14 discussed how each and every citizen in the country is equal in the eyes of law. From a servant to a master, to a civilian to a governmental authority, everybody has the same position as each other and will have to abide by the law which is common for all.
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit- Constitution shall recognize the laws that people have. Their rights and freedom shall be well stipulated by the constitution. The same shall be checked and balanced by the Courts in India. The judges of the courts will make sure that no arbitrariness arises and that violation of these rights are not done.
Finally, as led down by in the famous case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the courts held that Rule of Law is part of the basic structure of the constitution. Everything enshrined in the Constitution of India is the supreme governing law.
Also read- What is Rule of Law?
Also read- How to Own Your Own Mind (The Mental Dynamite Series)
[1] 1976 AIR 1207
[2] It was later through 44th amendment, 1978 (w.e.f. 20/06/1979), that the following article got amended.
0 Comments