About the Author
Anjali Gurunath Naik is a member of LJRF and MSF National Constitutional Literacy Mission, Kerala Chapter.
Introduction
Justice H.R. Khanna, whose full name was Hans Raj Khanna, was an eminent Indian jurist and judge. He was born on July 3, 1912, in Amritsar, Punjab, British India, and passed away on February 25, 2008, in New Delhi, India. Justice Khanna had an illustrious legal career and served as a judge in the Supreme Court of India from 1971 to 1977. He is widely regarded as one of the most courageous and principled judges in Indian judicial history.
Justice H.R Khanna- guardian of civil justice
One of Justice Khanna’s most significant contributions was his unwavering defence of civil liberties and fundamental rights, particularly during a crucial period in Indian history known as the Emergency. He was the only judge who had shown tremendous courage to uphold justice despite the odds of parliamentary abuse of power. At a critical stage of deterioration of our Constitutional ethics, Justice H R. Khanna showed citizens a silver lining during a catastrophic storm. His dissent became the most powerful one that taught the nation the meaning of true democracy. Justice Khanna’s courageous stand in favour of individual liberty in the face of a repressive regime made him an iconic figure in the history of Indian judiciary. He refused to compromise on his principles, even at the risk of future career advancements.
India’s darkest era
The period of emergency declared between 1975-1977 was the darkest period in Indian history. The nation saw its civil liberties suspended including the fundamental rights which the parliament had no authority to take away. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution cannot be amended by the parliament i.e. the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered or amended by any parliament or administrative authority. The question before the court in Adm Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla was whether individuals arrested during the emergency could seek relief through habeas corpus, which enables a person to challenge their unlawful detention. The majority of the judges ruled against the availability of habeas corpus, stating that during a state of emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended. In the habeas corpus case, the majority of the judiciary supported suspending fundamental rights after the declaration of national emergency that violated constitutional principles and ethics of a democratic nation.
Events that led to Emergency
As the Indira Gandhi government came into power in 1967, the following years of its rule brought major changes to eradicate poverty and to bring economic stability across the country. The two major emergencies declared during the Indo-China war (1962) and Indo-Pakistan war (1971) greatly impacted India’s economy. The Congress Government grew stronger after its measures were taken to resolve the stated issues that turned out to be a success. The nationalisation of banks and abolition of privy purses were the major steps taken in achieving economic stability. The Indira Government won once again in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections held against Socialist party candidate Jay Prakash Narain. However, situations of economic crisis, unemployment and oil crisis began to deteriorate simultaneously creating a nation-wide havoc. The losing candidate Raj Narain later filed allegations against the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for electoral malpractices during the 1971 elections before the Allahabad High Court which the Court upheld. The judgement of the Allahabad High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by Indira Gandhi. The Supreme Court ordered a partial stay that allowed Indira Gandhi to retain her position as a Prime Minister although she was prevented from contesting in elections for the next six years. Indira Gandhi, challenging the consequences of the judgement, used her parliamentary power under Article 352 of the Constitution to declare National Emergency by the President without consulting the Union Cabinet in the midnight of 25th June, 1975 that lasted till 21st March 1977. During the emergency period, Indira Gandhi made amendments to the constitution in order to overrule allegations made against her. The 39th amendment of the constitution stated that the election matters of the prime minister and the speaker cannot be interfered with by the judicial courts unless a majority vote by a committee is given. The amendment was made while the members of the parliament were in preventive detention for which was passed without a majority opinion. This was an instance of parliamentary abuse of power that arose out of dictatorial control by the Congress government at the time.
Post habeas corpus judgement
The decision held in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) curtailed individual freedom and fundamental rights. Many criticised the Supreme Court judgement for not upholding democratic and constitutional values by defying them. It was evident that the decision had elements of political influence. The Supreme Court was ignorant in foreseeing the parliament’s agenda in reversing the Allahabad High Court’s judgement in favour of the Prime Minister through the amendments. The failure of the judiciary to keep its values grounded by being influenced by politics was the dark side of the emergency period.
Resignation of Justice H.R.Khanna
The lone dissenter in the habeas corpus case, Justice H.R. Khanna took the courage to show the nation the authoritative rule by the Indira Gandhi Government. However, the majority bench was in favour of protecting the value of the state rather than individual rights and democracy. The courage shown was not appreciated. Justice H.R.Khanna was preceded by Justice M. H.Beg as the Chief Justice of India by the parliament for his dissent in the A.D.M.Jabalpur case. Soon after the emergency period ended officially on 21st March, 1977, fresh elections held overthrew the Congress government and a new government came into rule. The earlier amendments made were overruled by introducing the 44th amendment to the constitution.
Impact on the independence of Judiciary
Justice Khanna’s dissent became renowned as a powerful assertion of individual rights and an affirmation of the judiciary’s duty to stand against executive excesses. It is considered a historic defence of civil liberties and the principle of habeas corpus. Although Justice Khanna’s view did not prevail in the case, his dissenting opinion in ADM Jabalpur is often celebrated as a significant moment in Indian judicial history and a testament to the importance of an independent judiciary in upholding constitutional values and protecting citizens’ rights.
Justice Kaul has observed that the ADM Jabalpur judgement was an aberration of constitutional jurisprudence. Justice RF Nariman in his recent book ‘The Discordant Notes’ writes: “The rule of law under a constitutional democracy can never be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.”
Conclusion
Justice H.R. Khanna was an embodiment for preserving constitutional values of democracy. His commitment to the rule of law, his defence of individual rights, and his willingness to stand up against injustice left a lasting impact on the Indian legal system. He is often hailed as a champion of judicial integrity and remains an inspiration to many who believe in the critical role of an independent judiciary in upholding justice and the rights of citizens.The Emergency, declared from 1975 to 1977, was a period of suspended democratic rights and heightened authoritarianism by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Although his dissenting opinion in the habeas corpus case did not prevail at the time, it remains a symbol of judicial independence and the importance of protecting individual freedoms. His legacy continues to inspire generations of jurists and scholars who value the principle of habeas corpus and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
