Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), during the 1975-77 Emergency, the Supreme Court held that:
- Fundamental Rights cannot be suspended even during Emergency
- Right to move courts for enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 is suspended during Emergency, but this judgment was later overruled by Puttaswamy (2017)
- Emergency provisions are unconstitutional and violate basic structure
- Habeas corpus petitions can always be filed regardless of Emergency proclamation
Answer: Right to move courts for enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 is suspended during Emergency, but this judgment was later overruled by Puttaswamy (2017)
ADM Jabalpur (1976) habeas corpus during Emergency: (a) Context: During 1975-77 Emergency, Presidential order under Article 359 suspended enforcement of Fundamental Rights including Article 21; detainees challenged detention through habeas corpus petitions, (b) Supreme Court holding (4:1): (i) Right to move courts for enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 suspended during Emergency when Presidential order issued under Article 359, (ii) Detainees cannot challenge detention on grounds of violation of Article 21 during Emergency, (iii) Dissent by Justice H.R. Khanna: Argued right to life/liberty cannot be suspended even during Emergency, (c) Later developments: (i) 44th Amendment (1978): Made Articles 20-21 non-suspendable during Emergency, preventing recurrence, (ii) Puttaswamy (2017): Overruled ADM Jabalpur, held right to privacy (part of Article 21) cannot be suspended, reinforcing dignity as foundational value, (d) Applications: (i) Emergency safeguards: Post-1978, Articles 20-21 protected even during Emergency, (ii) Rights protection: Puttaswamy reinforced that core rights cannot be suspended, aligning with basic structure doctrine, (e) Illustrates constitutional learning: ADM Jabalpur represented low point in rights protection; subsequent amendments, judgments strengthened safeguards against Emergency misuse, demonstrating constitutional evolution through democratic practice.