Home › CLAT PG › law › constitutional_law_advanced › In ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla (1976), the m…
In ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla (1976), the majority held that during Emergency the right to move courts for enforcement of Article 21 stood suspended. This decision was
ANever criticised judicially
BReaffirmed by the 42nd Amendment
CAffirmed in Puttaswamy (2017)
DExpressly OVERRULED by the 9-judge bench in Puttaswamy (2017) — and earlier curbed by the 44th Amendment which barred suspension of Articles 20 and 21 during Emergency
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D. Expressly OVERRULED by the 9-judge bench in Puttaswamy (2017) — and earlier curbed by the 44th Amendment which barred suspension of Articles 20 and 21 during Emergency
Puttaswamy 2017 explicitly overruled ADM Jabalpur on the article 21 suspension point. The 44th Amendment (1978) had already amended Article 359 to bar suspension of Articles 20 and 21 during a proclaimed Emergency.
Related questions
Under the doctrine of 'pith and substance', if a law enacted by one legislature INCIDENTALArticle 311(2) provides that a civil servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in raIn M C Mehta v Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court evolved the principle of 'absoluteUnder Article 13(2), any law made by the State 'in contravention' of the Fundamental RightS R Bommai v Union of India (1994) significantly curtailedWhich decision laid down that Article 21's 'procedure established by law' must be just, fa'Prospective overruling' as a constitutional technique was introduced in India inDoctrine of 'colourable legislation' is BEST captured by the maxim