Facts of the Case
The President of India, acting under Article 352 of the Constitution, proclaimed a National Emergency on the ground of threat to the security of India. During the emergency, the President issued an order under Article 359(1) suspending the enforcement of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom Rights), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 22 (Protection against Preventive Detention).
A citizen was arrested by the executive authorities under preventive detention laws. The detainee challenged the detention before the court on the ground that it violated his fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 21, and 22, arguing that the right to life and liberty cannot be suspended under any circumstances.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 can be suspended during a National Emergency.
- Whether a citizen can approach the court to enforce fundamental rights when Article 359(1) order is in force.
- Whether right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is inviolable even during an emergency.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Article 352 – Proclamation of National Emergency
- Allows the President to declare emergency on the grounds of:
- War
- External Aggression
- Armed Rebellion
B. Article 358 – Suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19
- During Emergency on the above grounds, Article 19 remains automatically suspended.
C. Article 359 – Suspension of Right to Approach Courts
- The President may declare that the right to enforce Fundamental Rights will be suspended during emergency.
D. Rights Which Cannot Be Suspended
- Article 20 (Protection in respect of conviction of offenses).
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) cannot be suspended after Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978).
E. Important Case Law
- A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) – Habeas Corpus Case
- Held: During Emergency, a person cannot approach the court for enforcement of Article 21.
- This decision was later overruled.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Expanded the scope of Article 21 and established due process.
- 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978
- Explicitly provided that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during emergency.
Thus, post-44th Amendment:
- Articles 20 and 21 remain enforceable even during emergency.
- Articles 14, 19, and 22 may be restricted depending on presidential order under Article 359.
Possible Judgement
The citizen’s challenge is valid to the extent of Article 21.
After the 44th Constitutional Amendment, right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and protection in criminal proceedings (Article 20) cannot be suspended, even during a National Emergency.
Therefore:
- Detention without following due procedure is unconstitutional.
- The suspension of Articles 14 and 19 may be valid during emergency as per Presidential notification.
- But the right to life and personal liberty must still be protected.
The Court would order:
The detention of the citizen without lawful procedure is void, and he is entitled to approach the court for enforcement of Articles 20 and 21.
About lawgnan
Discover the constitutional limits on suspending Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency at Lawgnan.in. Learn how Articles 352, 358, and 359 empower the President, yet how the 44th Amendment ensures Articles 20 and 21 remain enforceable, safeguarding the Right to Life and Personal Liberty even in times of crisis. Explore key judgments like ADM Jabalpur and Maneka Gandhi, and understand your legal remedies against unlawful detention. Lawgnan.in offers expert insights on constitutional law, emergency powers, and judicial precedents that protect civil liberties in India’s democratic framework.
