This text is a detailed explanation of **MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act)**, its connection to **Habeas Corpus**, and its implications for **Article 21 of the Indian Constitution**. The speaker outlines how MISA, a law allowing for preventive detention, was used during India's Emergency period and challenged in court, notably through Habeas Corpus petitions. The discussion contrasts the concepts of **"procedure established by law"** and **"due process of law"** in relation to Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), using significant court cases like **AK Gopalan v. State of Madras** and the **ADM Jabalpur case (Habeas Corpus case)** to illustrate the evolving judicial interpretation of these principles. Ultimately, the text emphasizes how the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights against potentially arbitrary state action has developed over time, culminating in the overturning of the controversial ADM Jabalpur judgment.

视频信息

答案文本 复制

视频字幕 复制

The Maintenance of Internal Security Act, or MISA, was enacted in 1971 as a law that allowed the Indian government to detain individuals without trial for preventive purposes. This controversial legislation became particularly significant during India's Emergency period from 1975 to 1977, when it was extensively used to suppress political opposition and civil liberties. MISA, the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, was one of the most controversial laws in Indian legal history. Enacted during the Emergency period from 1975 to 1977, it allowed the government to detain individuals without trial for up to one year based merely on suspicion. This law became a powerful tool for suppressing dissent and opposition, symbolizing the extent of state overreach during this dark period in Indian democracy. Habeas Corpus, known as the Great Writ, is a fundamental legal principle that protects individuals against unlawful detention. It requires authorities to bring a detained person before a court and justify the detention. During India's Emergency period, many MISA detentions were challenged in courts through Habeas Corpus petitions, as citizens sought legal remedy against what they considered arbitrary state action. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This fundamental right became the focal point of legal challenges during the Emergency, as lawyers and activists argued that MISA violated the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. A crucial distinction in constitutional law is between 'procedure established by law' and 'due process of law'. The Indian Constitution adopted the former, which requires only that a law exists for detention, while due process would require the law to be fair and reasonable. This distinction was central to landmark cases like A.K. Gopalan versus State of Madras in 1950 and the controversial ADM Jabalpur case in 1976. The ADM Jabalpur case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case of 1976, represents one of the darkest chapters in Indian judicial history. The Supreme Court ruled that during Emergency, fundamental rights including habeas corpus were suspended. This controversial judgment was later overturned and is now widely considered a grave judicial error. The experience led to a stronger institutional commitment to protecting constitutional rights and judicial independence, showing how the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights against arbitrary state action has evolved and strengthened over time. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This constitutional provision became the cornerstone of legal challenges against MISA during the Emergency, as lawyers argued that preventive detention without proper judicial review violated this fundamental guarantee. Two landmark cases shaped the interpretation of Article 21. The AK Gopalan case of 1950 established a narrow interpretation, accepting procedure established by law without questioning its fairness. In stark contrast, the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976, decided during the Emergency, controversially ruled that habeas corpus rights could be suspended. This judgment became one of the most criticized decisions in Indian legal history and was later overturned, representing a dark chapter that strengthened resolve to protect constitutional rights. The Emergency period and MISA's implementation left a lasting impact on Indian constitutional law. The controversial ADM Jabalpur judgment became a cautionary tale about the dangers of judicial deference to executive power during crises. Its eventual reversal marked a crucial turning point in Indian jurisprudence. Today, the lessons learned from this dark period have strengthened the judiciary's commitment to protecting fundamental rights, ensuring that constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action remain robust and effective.