Impact of Declaration of Emergency Landmark judgements during emergency

Summary

This video explores landmark judgments that have shaped the interpretation of fundamental rights during emergencies in India. Key cases such as Makan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964), Mohammad Yakub v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968), and ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) are discussed, highlighting how the courts handled the suspension of rights under emergency provisions. The video also delves into the importance of habeas corpus petitions and the 44th Constitutional Amendment, which ensures the right to life and liberty even during emergencies.

Takeaways

• 📜 The video discusses the suspension of fundamental rights during emergencies, referencing several key judgments.
• ⚖️ Makan Singh vs State of Punjab (1964): Article 19 rights are suspended during emergencies, but citizens can still file petitions if detained arbitrarily.
• 🚨 During the Indochina War emergency, Articles 14, 21, and 22 were suspended, but habeas corpus petitions could still be filed for illegal detention.
• 📅 The emergency of 1975 saw the suspension of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 without legal basis, leading to numerous legal challenges.
• 💡 The Supreme Court ruled that citizens could not be denied their right to petition the High Court or Supreme Court, even during an emergency.
• 📜 In Mohammad Inia vs State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968), the Supreme Court clarified that presidential orders under Article 359 cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights.
• ⚖️ The ADM Jabalpur case (1976) ruled that during a presidential order, habeas corpus petitions could not be filed, marking a controversial moment in legal history.
• 🛡️ The 44th Constitutional Amendment ensures that Article 21, the right to life and liberty, cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
• 💼 In MM Pak vs Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are restored once an emergency ends, allowing citizens to enforce rights again.
• 🏛️ The discussion highlights the importance of fundamental rights and how landmark judgments have shaped their interpretation during national emergencies.

Q & A

What was the significance of the Makan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1964) case?

The Makan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1964) case ruled that even during an emergency where Article 19 rights are suspended, citizens still retain the right to file a writ petition if they are arbitrarily imprisoned. This case clarified that suspension of rights applies only to legally detained individuals.

How did the Defense of India Rules (DIR) impact citizens during the emergency period?

During the emergency, citizens detained under the Defense of India Rules (DIR) were affected because their fundamental rights to move to a court for enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22 were suspended. However, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal detention under the DIR could still be challenged through a habeas corpus petition.

What was the key legal principle established in Mohammad Yakub vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968)?

The key legal principle in Mohammad Yakub vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968) was that presidential orders issued under Article 359(1) are not considered laws under Article 13, and therefore their validity cannot be challenged based on violations of fundamental rights, such as Article 14, during an emergency.

What was the controversial decision in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976)?

In ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that no one could file a writ petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus while a presidential order suspending fundamental rights was in effect. This decision marked a 'dark day' in Indian legal history as it denied citizens the right to challenge illegal detentions during an emergency.

How did the 44th Constitutional Amendment impact Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

The 44th Constitutional Amendment ensured that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, cannot be suspended even during a national emergency. This amendment was passed unanimously in response to the abuses of power during the 1975 emergency.

What was the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in the MM Pak vs. Union of India (1977) case?

In the MM Pak vs. Union of India (1977) case, the Supreme Court ruled that although citizens' rights under Articles 14 to 19 are suspended during an emergency, their operation resumes after the emergency is lifted. In this case, employees were allowed to claim their cash bonuses after the emergency ended.

Why was the suspension of Article 14 significant during the 1975 emergency?

The suspension of Article 14 during the 1975 emergency was significant because it removed the right to challenge discriminatory actions. The government argued that Article 14 was suspended without any reference to the legality of actions taken during the emergency, and thus no challenges could be made.

What is the difference between the suspensions of rights during the 1964 and 1975 emergencies?

During the 1964 emergency, rights were only suspended for individuals legally detained under specific laws, such as the Defense of India Rules. However, in the 1975 emergency, fundamental rights, including Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22, were suspended for all citizens without any specific legal reference, leading to a broader suspension of rights.

What was the outcome of Gulam Salvar vs. Union of India, and how was it overruled?

In Gulam Salvar vs. Union of India, the Court held that presidential orders under Article 359(1) could be challenged if discriminatory. However, this was overruled in Mohammad Yakub vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1968), where the Court ruled that such orders could not be challenged, as they were not considered 'law' under Article 13.

What legal remedy was closed off by the Supreme Court’s ruling in ADM Jabalpur?

The Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur closed off the remedy of habeas corpus petitions, ruling that even illegal detentions could not be challenged while a presidential order suspending rights was in place, leaving detainees without any legal recourse during the emergency.