Home / Latest News / Learn how Justice D.Y. Chandrachud overruled the ADM Jabalpur Case authored by his father Jus. Y.V. Chandrachud

Learn how Justice D.Y. Chandrachud overruled the ADM Jabalpur Case authored by his father Jus. Y.V. Chandrachud

August 24, 2017

Earlier 5 Judge Bench said that under emergency provisions courts in the country cannot come to the rescue of Citizen trying to save his liberty, life or limb threatened to be taken away by the State.

Justice DY Chandrachud

As the Apex Court pronounced the landmark judgement that Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, 1 of the judges in the 9 judge constitution bench, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in a contradictory note overruled an earlier judgement authored by his father Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in the landmark case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in the contradicting note stated that the judgments rendered by the 4 Judges, including his father, constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur case were seriously flawed & noted that “ADM Jabalpur must be & is accordingly overruled; we also overrule the decision in Union of India v. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde, that followed ADM Jabalpur.”

The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant case, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, is a hugely debated one for the verdict where a 5 judge constitutional bench declared that under the emergency provisions nobody could seek the assistance of any Court in the country to try & save his liberty, life, limb threatened to be taken away by the State.

During the Emergency period in 1975, so many people were arrested under preventive detention & several cases were filed in the Courts against it. Various HCs ruled that even during Emergency the Courts could entertain a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a person challenging his or her detention.

The Govt. challenged the decision of the HCs & a 5 judge constitution bench was called together to hear the matter in the SC.

On April 28, 1976; 4 of the judges including, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, held that “Liberty is controlled & confined by law, whether common law or statute. It’s in the words of Burke a regulated freedom. It isn’t an abstract or absolute freedom.

The safeguard of liberty is in the good sense of the people & in the system of representative & responsible govt. which has been evolved. If extraordinary powers are given, they’re given because emergency is extraordinary & are limited to the period of the emergency.”

In the discordant note in the latest Right to Privacy judgement, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that Life & Personal Liberty are inalienable to human existence. These rights are as recognized in Kesavananda Bharati, primordial rights. They constitute rights under natural law.

While reflecting on a decision of US Supreme Court upholding the imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his Japanese ancestry as a judicial decision that should’ve never been, J. DY Chandrachud overruled the ADM Jabalpur case judgement.

Source New Indian Express

Supreme Court’s Judgement in ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case on Scribd

Supreme Court Nine Judge Constitution Bench Judgement on Right to Privacy on Scribd

Facebook Comments

Check Also

SC’s Constitution Bench to decide on Ban of Entry of Women in Sabarimala Temple

October 13,2017: Temple rules prohibits entry of the women who are in their menstruating years i.e between 10 to 50 years. Ban has the statutory backing in form of Rule 3(b), Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *