The average citizen is not aware of these judgments nor of the significance of the basic structure doctrine. Yet I have hardly come across a judge who has earned such universal affection of the common person. Whenever he would enter a hall to deliver a lecture or be present as a member of the audience people would spontaneously cheer and applaud him. And that was primarily because of his brave dissent in the habeas corpus case delivered in May 1976 during the height of the spurious June 1975 emergency. Khanna ruled that “Article 21 cannot be considered to be the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the state has got no power to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty without the authority of law. That is the essential postulate and basic assumption of the rule of law in every civilised society.” He refused to endorse the disgraceful conclusion of the majority that during the emergency a detention order cannot be challenged on the ground that the order is not in compliance with the act or is illegal or even if it is vitiated by mala fides.

Dissents which are fraught with risks and which are bound to incur official displeasure are rare. Justice Khanna was fully conscious that his dissent delivered on 28th April 1976 would cost him dearly. And it did. But he was true to his judicial oath of dispensing justice without fear. We witnessed his vindictive supercession as Chief Justice of India, the high office which was his legitimate entitlement.

... contd.