Editing Judicial independence (section)

==== During the Emergency (1975–1977) ====
One of the most significant tests of judicial independence in India occurred during the [[The Emergency (India)|Emergency]] declared by [[Indira Gandhi|Prime Minister Indira Gandhi]] from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. [[Civil liberties]] were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]] was severely curtailed. This period highlighted how the judiciary could be vulnerable to executive overreach—and how it responded under pressure.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-30 |title=Explained: The story of the Emergency |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-history/explained-the-story-of-the-emergency-9421688/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

===== The ADM Jabalpur Case (Habeas Corpus Case) =====
At the center of the judicial controversy during the Emergency was the [[ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla]] (1976) case, commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case. The question before the Supreme Court was: ''Can a person challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency when the right to life and liberty under Article 21 has been suspended?''<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Dhingra |first=Anjali |date=2024-09-24 |title=A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976) |url=https://blog.ipleaders.in/adm-jabalpur-v-shivakant-shukla/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=iPleaders |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Additional District Magistrate, ... vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

In a 4:1 majority judgment, the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] held that no person had the right to seek a writ of [[habeas corpus]] during the Emergency. This essentially gave the state unchecked power to detain individuals without trial. The lone dissent came from [[Hans Raj Khanna|Justice H.R. Khanna]], who famously ruled that ''"Even in absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of life or liberty without authority of law."'' His courageous stand cost him the position of [[Chief Justice of India]], as he was superseded in seniority.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-06-25 |title=43 years since Emergency: A look back at HR Khanna, the judge who stood up to Indira Gandhi |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/43-years-since-emergency-a-look-back-at-hr-khanna-the-judge-who-stood-up-to-indira-gandhi-365539.html |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Firstpost |language=en-us}}</ref>

This decision is widely regarded as a dark moment in Indian judicial history, where the judiciary was seen to have failed in its duty to protect fundamental rights.<ref name=":1" />

===== Executive Influence and Supercession of Judges =====
[[The Emergency (India)|The Emergency]] also saw executive interference in judicial appointments. In several instances, senior judges were superseded in favor of more pliant ones—particularly those seen as more favorable to the government. This practice undermined the convention of seniority and was viewed as a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Pai |first=Amit A. |date=2023-04-26 |title=1973 April 26- The Saddest Day In The History Of Our Free Institution |url=https://www.livelaw.in/articles/supreme-court-supersession-justice-jm-shelat-justice-ks-hegde-and-justice-an-grover-justice-an-ray-227230 |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>

[[A. N. Ray|Justice A.N. Ray]], who sided with the majority in the [[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala|Kesavananda Bharati]] case but dissented from the majority in the [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/513801/ Bank Nationalization case], was appointed [[Chief Justice of India]] by superseding three senior judges in 1973—an event often seen as a precursor to the erosion of judicial independence during the Emergency.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=A.N. Ray |url=https://www.scobserver.in/judges/a-n-ray/ |access-date=2025-03-21 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>

===== Legacy and Reassessment =====
After the Emergency ended and the [[Janata Party]] came to power, there was widespread introspection. The ADM Jabalpur judgment was heavily criticized, and many later Supreme Court decisions essentially overruled it in spirit, even if not formally.

In 2017, the Supreme Court in the [[Puttaswamy v. Union of India|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (privacy case) declared the ADM Jabalpur ruling to be “seriously flawed” and overruled it explicitly. The judgment reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot be suspended even in times of crisis, thereby restoring the dignity of judicial independence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ |access-date=21 March 2025 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>