The Delhi High Court, in the Vikas Chawla case, referenced Justice H.R. Khanna’s historic dissent in ADM Jabalpur to emphasize the importance of personal liberty. The court criticized procedural lapses that led to violations of fundamental rights, reinforcing that due process cannot be compromised. It reiterated that constitutional protections must prevail over administrative expediency. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual freedoms against arbitrary state action.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court issued an important ruling in the case of Vikas Chawla @ Vicky (CRL.M.C. 4845/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18207/2024, CRL.M.A. 18283/2024). The petitioner, represented by Ms. Rebecca M. John and Mr. Vishal Gosain, raised concerns about procedural irregularities surrounding his arrest, claiming violations of personal liberty and due process.
The case was brought before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who examined a revision petition against orders from an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) dated March 28, 2024, and a Magistrate from March 21, 2024.
Also Read: “Safety is Paramount”: Delhi HC Criticizes State Departments Over Flyover Repairs
The petitioner challenged a notice issued on March 19, 2024, under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that a person must appear before being arrested. He argued that his arrest should only be acknowledged upon his arrival at the police station on March 20, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., as stipulated in the notice.
Furthermore, he contended that the grounds for his arrest were not communicated in writing, violating the legal principles established in Prabir Purkayastha v. State and Pankaj Bansal, which emphasize the need for transparency in arrest procedures. Citing Amandeep Singh Johar v. State, reinforced by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil, the petitioner highlighted the critical safeguards that must be in place prior to an arrest.
In his ruling, Justice Bhambhani highlighted the importance of procedural adherence in protecting personal liberty.
He quoted Justice H.R. Khanna’s renowned dissent in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521, stating,
“The history of personal liberty, we must bear in mind, is largely the history of insistence upon procedure.”
This notable statement, regarded as one of the most significant dissents in Indian legal history, emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to protect fundamental rights through strict compliance with legal processes.
The ADM Jabalpur case, formally known as ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, was a pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court of India in 1976. This case emerged during the Emergency period imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977.
The petitioners, including Shivkant Shukla, contested their detention without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), claiming violations of their fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the detention orders and endorsed the suspension of the right to approach the court for enforcement of Article 21 during the Emergency.
The majority opinion effectively permitted the suspension of fundamental rights without judicial oversight for the duration of the Emergency.
After the Emergency ended, the Indian Constitution was amended by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, which introduced explicit prohibitions against suspending rights under Articles 20 (protection against conviction for offenses) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) during emergencies. This amendment was designed to address the issues raised by the ADM Jabalpur ruling and to strengthen the protection of these fundamental rights.
The ADM Jabalpur judgment was ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the sanctity of the right to life and personal liberty, establishing that the principles of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution remain in effect even during a state of emergency.
The court also considered the maintainability of the revision petition, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon.
It concluded that the denial of bail in cases involving terrorism charges did not prevent a valid revision petition from being filed.
Ultimately, the court determined that the procedural shortcomings in the petitioner’s arrest warranted judicial scrutiny, reinforcing the notion that due process is not merely a formality but a cornerstone of justice. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in curbing state overreach and ensuring that legal authority does not infringe upon individual rights.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
