National Emergency was imposed and all the Fundamental Rights were suspended by Presidential Declaration. A civil liberties activist approached the High Court for violation o his right to life and personal liberty. Decide.

Facts of the Case

A National Emergency was proclaimed under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. Following this, the President issued a Presidential Order under Article 359, suspending the enforcement of all Fundamental Rights, including the right to move any court for enforcement of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

A civil liberties activist approached the High Court alleging that his right to life and personal liberty had been violated by illegal detention and sought judicial protection. The Government argued that due to the Presidential Order, no petition for enforcement of Fundamental Rights is maintainable during Emergency.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 can be suspended during a National Emergency.
2. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a Presidential Order under Article 359 is in force.
3. Whether the detention of the activist is justiciable during the period of suspended rights.

Legal Principles Covered

1. Article 352 – Empowers the President to declare National Emergency.
2. Article 358 – Automatically suspends Article 19 during Emergency.
3. Article 359 – President may suspend the right to approach any court for enforcement of specified Fundamental Rights (including Article 21).
4. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
   • Supreme Court (majority) held that during Emergency, Article 21 can be suspended, and no person can challenge illegal detention.
   • However, this decision was later overruled in:
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and through implications of the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978:
   • Article 21 cannot be suspended, even during Emergency.
   • The right to life and personal liberty is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
6. Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973)
   • Parliament and the Executive cannot destroy essential features such as:
     • Rule of Law
     • Right to Life
     • Judicial Review

Possible Judgment / Decision

At the time when ADM Jabalpur was in force, courts upheld suspension of Article 21.
However, under the current constitutional position (post 44th Amendment and later Supreme Court rulings):

• Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 cannot be suspended, even during National Emergency.
• The Presidential Order cannot bar the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect non-suspended rights.
• The High Court may review and strike down illegal detention and order release or compensation.

Therefore, the activist’s petition is maintainable, and the suspension of the right to life is unconstitutional as it violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

About lawgnan

Explore how the suspension of Article 21 during a National Emergency has evolved in Indian constitutional law. Understand landmark cases like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, Kesavananda Bharati, and K.S. Puttaswamy, which shaped the protection of Right to Life and Personal Liberty as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Visit Lawgnan.in to study detailed case summaries, constitutional provisions, and judicial interpretations explaining why Article 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. Empower your legal knowledge with in-depth insights into India’s constitutional safeguards and judicial review principles.