Police Complaint Against Wife for Mental Harassment
Makhan Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1964 SC 381)
Background
This is one of the landmark constitutional law cases in India, decided by the Supreme Court in 1964.
It dealt with the suspension of fundamental rights during a proclamation of emergency under the Indian Constitution.
Facts of the Case
In October 1962, the Government of India declared a national emergency due to the Chinese aggression.
Under Article 352, the President issued a Proclamation of Emergency.
Later, under Article 359(1), the President also issued an order suspending the right of any person to move courts for enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22.
Several people, including Makhan Singh, were detained under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
Makhan Singh filed a petition challenging his detention before the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming violation of fundamental rights.
Issues Before the Court
Whether Article 359(1) suspends the fundamental rights themselves or only the right to move courts for their enforcement?
Whether a detainee can still approach the court for other legal or constitutional grounds (apart from suspended fundamental rights)?
Scope of judicial review during an emergency.
Judgment (Supreme Court)
The Supreme Court (Bench headed by Justice Gajendragadkar) held:
Article 359 does not suspend Fundamental Rights themselves –
It only bars enforcement of these rights in courts for the period mentioned.
The rights still exist, but the citizen cannot seek remedy in courts.
Detention Orders can still be challenged –
A detainee like Makhan Singh cannot claim violation of Articles 14, 21, or 22 during the emergency.
But he can challenge detention on other grounds, such as:
Lack of authority of the detaining officer
Mala fide intention
Violation of statutory provisions (Defence of India Act, Rules, etc.)
Distinction between Article 358 and Article 359 –
Article 358: Automatically suspends Article 19 rights during emergency.
Article 359: President may suspend the right to move courts for enforcement of other fundamental rights.
Makhan Singh’s petition dismissed – because his main challenge was based on suspended rights (Article 14, 21, 22).
Principles Laid Down
During emergency:
Fundamental rights continue to exist, but remedies are suspended under Art. 359.
Courts’ jurisdiction is not totally barred – only barred for suspended fundamental rights.
A person can still challenge detention on statutory or non-fundamental grounds.
Related Case Laws
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)
Preventive detention upheld; scope of judicial review limited.
ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976, Emergency Case)
SC held (by majority) that during Emergency, even Article 21 is suspended and no writ for habeas corpus lies. (Heavily criticized later).
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017, Privacy Case)
Overruled ADM Jabalpur; recognized right to life and liberty as inviolable even in emergencies.
Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
Basic structure doctrine; suspension of fundamental rights cannot destroy the basic structure.
Summary Table
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Makhan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1964) |
| Citation | AIR 1964 SC 381 |
| Context | Challenge to detention during 1962 Emergency |
| Issues | Effect of Article 359(1) order on enforcement of Fundamental Rights |
| Held | Art. 359 suspends remedy, not the rights themselves |
| Key Principle | Rights continue to exist; remedies barred; detention can still be challenged on other grounds |
| Outcome | Petition dismissed (detention upheld) |
| Importance | Defined scope of Art. 358 vs. 359; clarified judicial review during emergencies |
👉 So, in simple words:
Makhan Singh’s case established that Emergency does not destroy Fundamental Rights, it only blocks access to courts for enforcing them.
RELATED Blog
0 comments