Emergency wasn't just a reaction to judiciary's rulings
Fifty years later, the Emergency remains a dark chapter in India's democratic journey. It must be recalled, remembered and condemned because the real reason for imposing the Emergency was far more sinister than commonly understood. Many believe that Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency because she was rattled by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha's judgment invalidating her election from Rae Bareilly. By her own admission, Mrs Gandhi did it sensing an 'internal threat' in the country in June.
Evidence, however, suggests the plot to enforce the Emergency had been underway since early January that year. Journalist Coomi Kapoor in The Emergency: A Personal History mentions a handwritten note (dated January 8, 1975) from then West Bengal Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray requesting Mrs Gandhi for lists of persons proposed to be arrested. The list also mentioned various other steps that needed to be taken. On August 11, Congress mouthpiece National Herald stated in an editorial the real reason for the Emergency. It said that the time had come for India to evolve into a single-party democracy.
In Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India, historian Srinath Raghavan writes that Mrs Gandhi's closest aides had been pushing for a presidential system. This system was one of limited dictatorship, a committed judiciary and a committed bureaucracy.
In September 1975, B K Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and close aide of Mrs Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a 'tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support'. He wrote to Mrs Gandhi that Parliamentary democracy had 'not been able to provide the answer to our needs' and urged her to 'make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority'.
One would have dismissed the letter as an act to please the PM had Mrs Gandhi not approved of discussing these ideas with her party leaders.
The ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh. As these aides explored the proposals made by B K Nehru on Mrs Gandhi's instructions, what emerged was a document titled 'A fresh look at our Constitution: Some suggestions'. Drafted in 1975, the document proposed a presidential system with a powerful president and a 'Superior Council of Judiciary' to control judicial appointments and legislation, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court's role.
In response to Mrs Gandhi's call to 'explore BK Nehru's proposal and party demand for constitutional change', Congress president D K Barooah appointed, on February 26, 1976, a committee 'to study the question of amendment of the Constitution… in the light of experience'. The 12-member committee, headed by Swaran Singh, submitted 'tentative proposals' to the Congress president in April 1976 and these were then circulated among a select few.
The then Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Justice P B Gajendragadkar, wrote to Mrs Gandhi that while an amendment to the Constitution was necessary, 'ad-hocism is undesirable and adoption of extremist doctrinaire positions is irrelevant and inadvisable'. He advised the then PM 'to appoint a high-powered committee to research and discuss the problem in depth for a dedicated and comprehensive effort'.
Sadly, no such committee was appointed.
Justice Gajendragadkar later reiterated his view that the amendments to the fundamental law of the land should not have been left to a party committee and that the modality could, advisedly, have been a committee of experts to hear all parties and persons. He said that the committee appointed by Barooah had 'worked in a hurry, discussed issues in a casual manner and based its recommendations mainly on political considerations'.
The 42nd Amendment, infamously called the 'mini-Constitution', brought in sweeping changes. Its primary objective, based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, was to enhance the power of the central government and reduce the influence of the judiciary. The 42nd Amendment curtailed the power of the courts to review and invalidate laws passed by Parliament. This was done by amending Articles 32, 131, and 226. It also diluted the power of high courts to issue writ petitions. This is the same power that B R Ambedkar said was the very heart and soul of India's Constitution.
The 42nd Amendment altered the balance of power between the Centre and the states. States found themselves with less control over their own affairs, leading to tensions and conflicts over jurisdiction and governance.
The centralisation of power made it harder for regional parties to advocate for regional issues. The publication of parliamentary proceedings in the media was prohibited under the Emergency. The Statesman warned that 'by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the Parliament'.
The attempt Congress made to impose dictatorship in the country was throttled as, despite the mass jailing of leaders, the Opposition — which would later form the Janata Party — continued to fight for people's rights and the restoration of democracy. Mrs Gandhi also faced backlash from the global community and was rattled by political developments in the Subcontinent where similar attempts were made to usurp people's rights.
But the basic DNA of Congress stays the same.
Congress leaders walking around with copies of the Constitution are attempting to make people forget the party's gory past. June 25 serves as a reminder that the Indian Constitution is above and before all else. Led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP and the country together will continue to defend it.
The writer is Union Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rahul Gandhi has tea with ‘dead' voters from Bihar, thanks EC for ‘unique experience'
Amid the ongoing high-voltage row over the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday thanked the Election Commission for the 'unique experience' he had of having tea with some "dead" voters. Rahul Gandhi also told the 'dead' voters to go around Delhi for some sightseeing as they won't even be charged tickets. (X/@INCIndia) The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha met a group of seven voters at his residence, who told him how they were declared "dead" by the poll body and their names were removed from the electoral rolls. "There have been many interesting experiences in life, but I never got the chance to have tea with 'dead people'. For this unique experience, thank you Election Commission!" Gandhi said in a post on X. ALSO READ | EC: Not legally bound to disclose omitted names in Bihar SIR He also shared a video of his meeting with those voters. Some of the voters are heard telling the Congress leader that they found they were "declared dead" upon checking the electoral rolls released by the EC during the SIR. These people were among the 65 lakh voters whose names have been removed from the rolls in poll-bound Bihar. WATCH: The group informed Gandhi that they appeared before the Supreme Court on Wednesday to get their names back on the list as the apex court is hearing petitions against the SIR exercise in Bihar. Gandhi is also heard asking them if they had ever been to Delhi earlier, and tells them to go for some sightseeing in the capital as the "dead" will not even need any tickets. Later, the Congress also said that the seven voters from Bihar are very much alive, and they shared tea with Rahul Gandhi. These voters from Bihar are Ramikbal Ray, Harendra Ray, Lalmuni Devi, Vachiya Devi, Lalwati Devi, Punam Kumari, and Munna Kumar; and all of them hail from RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav's Raghopur constituency. ALSO READ | ECI targeting Rahul to cover up its mistakes: Congress "They have been removed from the electoral rolls despite having completed the requisite paperwork for the SIR. The Election Commission has not openly published lists of the people whom it has declared dead, migrated, etc. Our teams on the ground were able to identify these people only because they managed to informally get EC's internal report in two to three polling booths," the party said. It added that these seven voters represent only a fraction of the "unjustly" deleted voters in two to three polling booths in the constituency. "This is not a clerical error - it is political disenfranchisement in plain sight," it added. "After 'Vote Chori' was exposed in Bengaluru, it is clear that the Bihar SIR exercise is also compromised. When the living are struck off as dead, the death certificate is issued to democracy itself," the Congress further said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump Wins Fight to Withhold Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
The Trump administration can cut potentially billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for Trump's broader effort to withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision.
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bihar SIR is a battle between EC's power over polls and citizens' right to vote: SC
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls is a battle between the Election Commission of India's 'power' over elections and the ordinary citizen's right to be named in electoral rolls, and to be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday (August 13, 2025). Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant hearing petitions against the SIR, observed that poll-bound Bihar was in the middle of a contest between Article 324, which empowers the Election Commission (EC) to control elections, and the constitutional right of adult suffrage enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution. Bihar SIR row hearing highlights on August 13, 2025 'Casual removal of voting rights' The judge's observation was in response to arguments raised by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan that the procedure of sending pre-filled enumeration forms to electors, only to later delete 65 lakh of them from the electoral roll without any prior enquiry or physical hearing — that too, with just two months left for the Assembly election in November — was, to say the least, a 'casual way of doing away with citizens' right to vote'. 'An elector means someone who is already in the electoral roll. The enumeration form, indicative documents are just figments of the imagination of the EC. There is no such procedure in the Representation of the People Act. I have a statutory right to remain in the electoral roll. The procedure for removal from the electoral roll is 'absolutely strict' as intended by the Parliament. Removal would only be subsequent to an enquiry, even for one elector. It is the concept of the 'little man' laid down in the Supreme Court by Justice Krishna Iyer… Who gave the EC power to do this, under which law and what authority?' Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted. EC's discretionary power Justice Bagchi referred to the 'elbow room' provided to the EC under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which says that the EC can conduct a 'special revision' in 'such manner as it may think fit'. 'Does this provision give the EC some residuary discretion to introduce elements like enumeration forms, additional indicative documents?' Justice Bagchi quizzed the petitioners. However, Mr. Sankaranarayanan responded that Section 21(3) only contemplated a special revision of 'any one constituency or a part of a constituency'. 'Can the provision be used to change the electoral rolls of the entire country from a time of your own choice? Does it authorise EC to embark on an en masse revision of the electoral rolls across the country?' the senior advocate responded. Section 21(3) was meant to be resorted to only in 'exceptional circumstances', he said. Summarising Section 21(3), Justice Bagchi said that it authorised the EC to devise procedures for special revision of the electoral roll in case of exceptional circumstances like a natural disaster. 'Otherwise, the EC has to strictly follow Rules 4 to 24 of the Registration of Electors Rules,' Justice Bagchi said. Voter inclusive vs exclusionary Justice Bagchi and Mr. Singhvi debated on whether giving citizens an option to choose from as many as 11 'indicative' documents to prove their citizenship and find their way back to the electoral roll could be considered 'voter-inclusive' rather than 'voter-exclusionary', as argued by the petitioners. The judge pointed out that earlier summary revisions provided a choice of only seven documents. Mr. Singhvi, however, said the list of 11 documents was 'impressive, but hollow'. They were either irrelevant, non-existent, or had minimum coverage in Bihar, he said, noting that only 1% of Bihar's residents has a passport. Most women in the State do not have matriculation certificates, Mr. Singhvi said, adding that 87% had Aadhaar, which was not included as one of the EC's 11 approved documents. Justice Kant said the central civil services were mostly populated by people from Bihar. 'I am not talking about those few. I am talking about the poor and marginal population of Bihar who live in flood-prone, poverty-stricken and rural areas… The EC says these documents are indicative of your citizenship, but they have only exclusionary value,' Mr. Singhvi submitted. 'EC's malafide intentions' So far, he said, the SIR has only witnessed the 'de facto deletion of electors'. 'The SIR policy is to presumptively exclude the entire mass of electors in Bihar since 2003 and then put the onus on them to come with any of the indicative documents to prove their citizenship... These are people who have voted in five to 10 elections since 2003, and you have deleted 65 lakh of them without any enquiry, physical interviews, verification or giving them an opportunity to produce documents,' Mr. Singhvi said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the 'malafide' of the EC was evident from its haste in conducting the SIR, its refusal to accept Aadhaar or voter ID cards, its refusal to publish the names of the 65 lakh deleted voters and the specific reasons for their exclusion, and the removal of the mechanism to search for names in the draft electoral roll after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's press conference on the issue.
