In a pointed critique of India’s higher judiciary, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has reignited a historical and constitutional debate by recalling the infamous 1976 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case, widely known as the Habeas Corpus case, during an event at Delhi University.

Dhankhar, who has recently become a vocal critic of what he terms “judicial overreach”, referenced the Emergency period (1975–77) as "the darkest period in human history of the democratic world." In particular, he highlighted the Supreme Court’s controversial decision that allowed the suspension of fundamental rights, including the right to life, under the guise of executive power.

Recalling Justice HR Khanna’s Lone Dissent

One of the most significant elements of Dhankhar’s speech was his tribute to Justice HR Khanna, who was the sole dissenter in the 4:1 Supreme Court verdict that upheld the government’s ability to suspend Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty.

Interestingly, Justice Khanna is the uncle of the current Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, making the mention all the more poignant in today’s judicial-political discourse.

Justice Khanna had famously ruled that "even in the absence of Article 21, the state does not have the authority to deprive a person of life or liberty without legal sanction." His principled dissent is now widely regarded as a heroic stand in Indian legal history.

What Was the ADM Jabalpur Case?

The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case occurred during the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It tested the constitutional boundaries of personal liberty. The verdict concluded that no person had the right to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during an Emergency.

This case essentially gave sweeping powers to the Executive under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) to detain individuals without judicial review — a move that was harshly criticised over the years and ultimately overruled in 2017 by the Supreme Court.

Parliament vs Judiciary: Who Holds the Final Word?

In his latest remarks, VP Dhankhar reiterated his stance that Parliament is the ultimate authority under the Constitution and there is no visualisation of any authority above it.

He said, "Parliament is supreme," and expressed concern over what he described as attempts by the judiciary to act like a “super Parliament”, particularly in the context of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Dhankhar’s comments come in the wake of a Supreme Court judgment directing the President to act within a timeline regarding bills withheld by state governors, a move that he believes undermines the Constitutional hierarchy.

Criticism of Supreme Court’s Use of Article 142

Further intensifying his criticism, the Vice President also questioned the judiciary’s application of Article 142 of the Constitution, calling it a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.”

This came after the Supreme Court used Article 142 to declare that 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which were withheld by Governor RN Ravi, are deemed to have been assented to — a move Dhankhar sees as a judicial overreach into executive and legislative functions.

Dhankhar’s Larger Message: Speed, Not Size, Is the Future

Interestingly, Dhankhar’s critique wasn’t just about the past. He tied it to contemporary governance and constitutional practices, emphasising that the next wave of leadership and progress would be defined by speed, strategic influence, and not necessarily size.

He warned against misunderstanding constitutional roles, asserting, “Nothing can be far distanced from a wrong understanding of the role of everyone in this country – constitutional functionary or a citizen.”

Judiciary’s Subtle Response

While the judiciary has not responded officially, a Supreme Court bench subtly pushed back, saying, “As it is, we are alleged of encroaching upon the parliamentary and executive functions,” perhaps alluding to the tension created by Dhankhar’s repeated remarks.

The Larger Constitutional Debate

This episode adds fuel to an ongoing debate in India’s democratic structure — the balance of power between the three pillars of democracy: Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.

While Dhankhar advocates for Parliamentary supremacy, citing the Constitution’s silence on any authority above it, critics argue that judicial review is essential to prevent majoritarian overreach, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Conclusion: A Historic Reflection with Contemporary Consequences

Dhankhar’s speech serves as both a historical reflection and a political statement. By invoking the 1976 Emergency-era ruling and Justice Khanna’s dissent, he draws attention to what he perceives as growing judicial interference in legislative and executive spheres.

The ongoing discourse is likely to remain a hotbed of legal and political debates, especially with evolving judicial activism, constitutional interpretation, and separation of powers at the core of governance in India.

The Upcoming IPOs in this week and coming weeks are Tankup Engineers.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.

Join our Trading with CA Abhay Telegram Channel for regular Stock Market Trading and Investment Calls by CA Abhay Varn - SEBI Registered Research Analyst.