In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 (the Habeas Corpus Case), the Supreme Court was effectively overruled by:
AThe insertion of Article 21A by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002
BThe Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 read with the Whistle Blowers Protection Act
CThe Right to Information Act, 2005 read with later Supreme Court interpretation
DThe 44th Amendment Act, 1978 amending Article 359 + Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 amending Article 359 + Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1
1. ADM Jabalpur (1976) had held by 4:1 majority (Khanna J. dissenting) that during a Proclamation under Article 352, even Article 21 (right to life) could be suspended.
2. The 44th Amendment, 1978 statutorily ensured Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended.
3. In Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Privacy) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur on the merits.
4. None of the other options addressed ADM Jabalpur.
_Source: Constitution of India (Bare Act, updated to 105th Amendment Act 2021), Govt. of India Legislative Dept., 44th Amendment Act 1978; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)_
Related questions
In National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, the SuprThe Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 — providing 10 per cent reservation for EconoArticle 131 of the Constitution confers on the Supreme Court of India:Which case overruled the proposition in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 tArticles 280 (Finance Commission) and 281 (recommendations of the Finance Commission) beloThe Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution lists subjects that may be devolved by State LegArticles 243 to 243-O of the Constitution, inserted by the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, deal The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides for the administration of tribal areas in