The Rational Brief

The Habeas Corpus Case (1976) is formally known as ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla.
It is one of the most controversial judgments in Indian legal history. The key takeaway from the majority ruling was that, during the Proclamation of Emergency, a person’s right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), was suspended.
Justice H. R. Khanna’s famous dissenting judgment, which stated that “detention without trial is an anathema to a democratic society” and that even in the absence of Article 21, the right to life and liberty is a natural right that cannot be taken away by the state without authority of law, became a cornerstone of civil liberties in India. He was the sole dissenter, and this dissent is widely regarded as a profound act of judicial courage, which is believed to have cost him the position of Chief Justice of India.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.

Objective: To prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and, for that purpose, to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Definition of Cruelty (Section 11): The Act defines what constitutes cruelty, including:
Beating, kicking, overriding, overloading, torturing, or otherwise treating any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering.

Keeping any animal in a cage or receptacle that does not allow it reasonable opportunity of movement.
Mutilating or killing any animal in an unnecessarily cruel manner.
Inciting any animal to fight, or organizing, keeping, or using any place for animal fights.
Establishment of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI): The Act established the AWBI as a statutory advisory body to the Government of India on animal welfare laws and to promote animal welfare generally.
Exemptions: The Act provides certain exemptions, primarily regarding necessary experiments on animals for the purpose of advancing biological knowledge, subject to guidelines, and the killing of animals in a manner required by any religious rites, or the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers.
Penalties: It prescribes penalties for various forms of cruelty to animals.
Regulation of Experiments: It includes provisions and rules (like the CPCSEA rules) for the control and supervision of experiments on animals to ensure they are conducted humanely and only when absolutely necessary.

Brief Summary: Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 124)

Background:
Romesh Thapar, editor of the weekly magazine Crossroads, published articles critical of the Nehru government’s policies. The Government of Madras, citing Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, banned the entry and circulation of the magazine in parts of the state, claiming it endangered “public safety” and “public order.” Thapar challenged this order before the Supreme Court, alleging violation of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned order violated Article 19(1)(a) or was protected under the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2).
2. Whether Section 9(1-A) of the Act was void under Article 13(1) as inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution.
3. Whether the petitioner should have first approached the High Court before coming to the Supreme Court.

Judgment:
The Court held that both remedies—approaching the High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32—were independent and analogous; hence, the petitioner could directly approach the Supreme Court.
The Court declared that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of circulation of ideas, and any restriction on circulation amounts to infringement of Article 19(1)(a).
Since “public order” was not one of the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) at that time (only “security of the State” was), Section 9(1-A) was unconstitutional.
Applying the Doctrine of Severability, the Court struck down Section 9(1-A) as void under Article 13(1).

Dissent:
Justice Fazl Ali dissented, stating that maintaining public order and tranquillity was essential to state security and thus a reasonable restriction on speech.

Significance:
This landmark judgment was the first to directly protect the freedom of the press in India. It underscored that restrictions on circulation violate free expression. The case also prompted the First Constitutional Amendment (1951), which added “public order” as a ground for reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).