ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla was a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to the suspension of Articles 21 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in the event of a National Emergency. This controversial judgment of P.N. Bhagwati, decreed during the emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended in the interest of the State. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. Going against the previous decisions of High Courts, the bench which included P. N. Bhagwati concluded by a majority 4:1 in favour of the then Indira Gandhi government while only Justice Hans Raj Khanna was opposed to it. Bhagwati openly praised Indira Gandhi during the Emergency period, later criticized her when Janata Party-led government was formed and again backed Gandhi when she got re-elected to form government in 1980. Bhagwati was criticized for these change of stands, favouring the ruling government, which were deemed as to have been taken to better his career prospects. Bhagwati later in 2011 agreed with popular opinion that this judgement was short-sighted and apologised. Dissent
Justice Hans Raj Khanna was the sole dissenter among the five judges. In retaliation for his dissent, he was later overlooked during the appointment of the Chief Justice. Reception 
According to Ajay Kumar of Firstpost, "the judgment has been viewed as a stain on the legacy of the court for many years. The ratio decidendi (rationale behind the judgment) that all rights under our Constitution are a positive creation of law rather than merely recognised greatly increases the power of the State to do what it likes with them." Overruled
The ADM Jabalpur case was overruled on the doctrinal grounds concerning the rights by the Puttaswamy v. Union of India delivered by a nine judge, constitutional bench of the Supreme court. At the paragraph 119 of the majority opinion the Court had ruled:

