In a landmark judgment delivered in April 1976, a four-judge majority upheld the government’s stance, ruling that even if a person was unlawfully detained, courts could not intervene. Justice H.R. Khanna, however, stood as the lone dissenting voice. His dissent argued that the Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty could not be suspended even during emergencies. Khanna wrote:
NEW DELHI: After the Supreme Court announced the ascension of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI), attention turned to a pivotal figure from his family’s past Justice Hans Raj Khanna, his uncle, whose integrity and dissent during one of India’s darkest periods left an indelible mark on the judiciary.
The elder Khanna’s defiance of the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency (1975-77) remains an enduring tale of courage in safeguarding individual liberties. However, his principled stand came at a personal cost he was bypassed for the post of Chief Justice of India in 1976.
The Emergency and the Habeas Corpus Case
The Emergency (1975-77) imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi remains one of the most controversial chapters in India’s democratic history. During this period, civil liberties were suspended, opposition leaders were arrested, and the press was muzzled. Amid these curtailments of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate a case of profound significance: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case.
In the case, the question before the court was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy if detained unlawfully during the Emergency. The government, arguing in favor of unlimited executive power, contended that no one had the right to approach the courts for relief during the suspension of fundamental rights.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s Historic Dissent
In a landmark judgment delivered in April 1976, a four-judge majority upheld the government’s stance, ruling that even if a person was unlawfully detained, courts could not intervene. Justice H.R. Khanna, however, stood as the lone dissenting voice. His dissent argued that the Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty could not be suspended even during emergencies.
Khanna wrote:In his dissenting opinion, Khanna eloquently stated:
“When a Constitution is suspended, it is the very foundation of liberty that is threatened. Without liberty, law loses its raison d’être and becomes the embodiment of oppression.”
His dissent became a symbol of judicial independence, reinforcing the idea that the rule of law prevails over authoritarianism. Although he stood alone in the verdict, history has vindicated his stance, with many considering his opinion as one of the greatest defenses of human rights in India’s judicial annals.
Repercussion of Dissenting Order
Justice H.R. Khanna’s refusal to compromise on his principles had far-reaching consequences. Following the retirement of CJI A.N. Ray in January 1977, Khanna, by seniority, was the natural choice to become the Chief Justice of India. However, Indira Gandhi’s government bypassed him, appointing Justice M.H. Beg instead.
This unprecedented move was widely criticized as an assault on judicial independence, with many viewing it as punishment for his dissent in the Habeas Corpus case.
Khanna resigned the next day, refusing to serve under a system that rewarded loyalty to the executive over the principles of justice. His bypassing remains a cautionary tale, warning future governments against interference with the judiciary.
Justice Khanna’s courage earned him respect across generations. His name is synonymous with judicial valor, and his dissent is regularly cited by legal scholars and practitioners as an example of how principled judgments shape the moral fabric of the judiciary. In 1978, Khanna wrote a book titled “Neither Roses Nor Thorns”, reflecting on his experiences and philosophical views on law and governance.
The ADM Jabalpur verdict was formally overturned by the Supreme Court in 2017, reinforcing the correctness of Khanna’s dissent after more than four decades. His dissent is today celebrated as a moral victory for liberty and democracy.
Sanjiv Khanna: Following in the Footsteps of a Legal Tyranny
As Justice Sanjiv Khanna prepares to take over as the Chief Justice of India, his familial connection to Justice H.R. Khanna adds symbolic weight to the occasion. Known for his progressive judgments on civil liberties, fundamental rights, and accountability, Sanjiv Khanna’s elevation to the CJI post carries echoes of his uncle’s legacy. His rise is particularly meaningful, given the tumultuous relationship between the judiciary and executive during H.R. Khanna’s tenure.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure is expected to uphold the tradition of judicial independence, with the hope that he, too, will continue to protect the Constitution against any form of authoritarianism. His judgments over the years reflect a commitment to individual rights, much like his uncle’s uncompromising defense of liberty during the Emergency.
Conclusion
The story of Justice H.R. Khanna is not merely one of personal sacrifice but a testament to the enduring strength of constitutional democracy. As India prepares to welcome Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next Chief Justice, the echoes of his uncle’s dissent resonate louder than ever. In a democracy where judicial independence is a cornerstone, the example of H.R. Khanna’s courage serves as a guiding light. The significance of Sanjiv Khanna’s appointment goes beyond seniority it symbolizes the continuity of integrity, independence, and the relentless pursuit of justice.
The Khanna family’s contribution to India’s judiciary reminds us that the fight for liberty is ongoing and that the torchbearers of justice must never waver, even when faced with the most daunting challenges.
