The ADM Jabalpur case (also known as the Habeas Corpus case) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history. The main points of the case judgment are:

Context: The case was heard in 1976 during the period of Emergency declared in India by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. During this time, civil liberties were curtailed and fundamental rights were suspended.

The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether a person could approach the court for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal order requiring a person to be brought before the court) when they had been detained by the government during the period of Emergency.

Judgment: In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that during a period of Emergency, the government could suspend the right to life and personal liberty, and that the court could not entertain writs of habeas corpus challenging such detention.

Dissenting opinion: Justice H.R. Khanna delivered a powerful dissenting opinion, arguing that the right to life and personal liberty could not be suspended, and that the court had a duty to protect fundamental rights even during an Emergency.

Impact: The judgment has been widely criticized for upholding the government’s power to detain citizens without trial and for its lack of concern for civil liberties. It has been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Minerva Mills case (1980), which restored the primacy of fundamental rights in India.

Overall, the ADM Jabalpur case is considered a controversial and highly significant case in Indian constitutional law, highlighting the importance of protecting fundamental rights and the limits of government power.