Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.Subhashini, A.V.RANGAM, Altaf Ahmed, AMIAN GHOSH, B.R.AGRAWAL, B.V.DESAI, BAKSHI SITA RAM, Balakrishnan, BALBHADRA PRASAD SINGH, C.K.DAFTARY, C.K.RAINA PARKHI, C.L.SAHU, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, D.R.Dhanuka, DANIAL LATIF, DIPCHAND JAIN, G.C.DWIVEDI, G.D.GUPTA, Ghatate, GIRDHAR MALVIYA, GIRISH CHANDRA, H.S.PARIHAR, HARDEV SINGH, I.M.SHROFF, J.M.NANAVATI, J.M.THAKAR, J.N.KAUSHAL, J.P.GOYAL, J.S.VASU, K.HINGORANI, K.K.JHA, K.N.B.REDDY, K.N.TRIPATHI, LILI THOMAS, LILY THOMAS, M.C.NIHALANI, M.K.JAIN, M.K.NAYAR, M.M.ABDUL KHADER, M.M.Gharekhan, M.N.SHROFF, M.P.Jha, M.Qamaruddin, M.VEERAPPA MOILY, M.VIRAPPA, MAHARAJ JAI SINGH, Malhotra, Manek Tarkunde, N.M.GHATATE, N.M.QAZI, N.Nettra, NARAYAN NETTAR, NIREN DEY, O.N.TIKKU, O.P.RANA, O.P.Sharma, P.P.Rao, P.RAM REDDY, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.C.BHATIA, R.H.Dhebar, R.M.Sachthey, R.N.BYRA REDDY, R.N.NATH, R.N.SACH, R.P.GOYAL, R.S.SODHI, R.W.ADIK, RAGHUBIR MALHOTRA, RAM PANJWANI, RAMA JOISE, RAMA JOISEE, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.K.Sinha, S.K.VERMA, S.M.JHA, S.N.KACKAR, S.N.KAKKAR, S.P.NAIR, S.P.NAYAR, S.S.Khanduja, S.VENKATESHWARA RAO, SANTOK SINGH, SHANTI BHUSHAN, Sharad Manohar, SOLI J.SORABJI, SURAJ BHAN GUPTA, SURINDER MOHAN, SVARAN MAHAJAN, Udaipratap Singh, V.K.SINGH, V.M.TARKUNDE, V.MAYA KRISHNAN, V.P.Raman, VINIT KUMAR, YATINDER SINGH

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India addressed the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking habeas corpus for persons detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA), in the context of a Presidential Order issued on June 27, 1975, under Article 359(1). This order suspended the right to move any court for enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 during the ongoing emergencies proclaimed on December 3, 1971, and June 25, 1975 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The Court examined whether such petitions could challenge detention orders on grounds like non-compliance with MISA, mala fides, or lack of lawful authority. The majority held that Article 21 constitutes the sole repository of the right to personal liberty, encompassing both substantive and procedural protections against deprivation except by procedure established by law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The Presidential Order, by suspending enforcement of this right, deprives detainees of locus standi to seek judicial review via habeas corpus, rendering such petitions maintainable only if the detention lacks any ostensible legal basis (e.g., issued by an unauthorized authority or patently outside statutory powers) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The majority emphasized that while executive actions must generally conform to law, the Order's effect during emergency is to bar challenges invoking Article 21, including those alleging procedural irregularities or mala fides, as these inherently enforce the suspended right (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The rule of law, requiring executive actions to have legal sanction, remains operative but is subordinated to emergency provisions; it does not independently sustain habeas corpus claims under Article 21 during suspension (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Pre-Constitution common law or statutory rights to liberty merge into Article 21 and are equally suspended in enforcement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The majority rejected arguments that Article 226's "for any other purpose" clause allows bypassing the suspension, as substantive claims still invoke the barred right (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Regarding Section 16A(9) of MISA, the majority upheld its validity as a rule of evidence deeming detention grounds confidential and against public interest to disclose, without encroaching on Article 226 jurisdiction, as it aligns with the Order's suspension and limits scrutiny to facial validity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Section 18 of MISA, negating non-statutory liberty rights, was also affirmed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The minority view, articulated by Justice Khanna, dissented on maintainability, holding Article 21 does not exclusively embody liberty rights; pre-Constitutional common law and statutory protections persist independently, allowing habeas corpus challenges to ultra vires detentions or statutory violations, as the Order suspends only specified fundamental rights, not broader legality principles (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The minority affirmed habeas corpus as integral to constitutional structure, unaffected by the Order, with judicial scrutiny ensuring compliance with MISA's procedural safeguards (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It deferred ruling on Section 16A(9)'s validity to full merits hearings (!) .

The majority's conclusions prevailed: appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside, petitions dismissed as barred, with liberty preserved for non-Article 21 claims (e.g., criminal appeals) (!) (!) .