Latest news with #DefenceofIndiaAct
India Gazette
5 hours ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Biggest blot in history of Independent India: Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on 50th anniversary of Emergency
New Delhi [India], June 25 (ANI): Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan on Wednesday termed imposition of Emergency as the 'biggest blot' in the history of Independent India. Lashing out at the Congress party on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, Union Minister Chouhan stated that the countrymen should take a 'pledge' that such a day would not come again in India. 'Can those days be forgotten? The country will never forget that the day is the biggest blot in the democratic history of independent India - Samvidhan Hatya Diwas. The country should take a pledge that this day should not come again', Chouhan told ANI. The Union Minister highlighted that the Constitution was 'killed' and democracy was 'crushed' on June 25, 1975. Chouhan noted that the Congress should recall that 'dictatorship' is in their 'DNA'. He stated that Indira Gandhi made attempts to crush democracy across the country just for the sake to save her position. 'Constitution was killed on this day. Democracy was crushed, and today they roam around with a copy of the Constitution. They should recall that this is the same Congress that has dictatorship in its DNA. To save her post and to continue to be in power, Indira Gandhi made attempts to crush democracy across the country', Chouhan said. Recalling the Emergency period, the Union Agriculture minister said that the whole nation was turned into a 'jail' and the fundamental rights of the citizens were 'snatched'. The former Madhya Pradesh CM mentioned that the government also misbehaved with the press and a pillar of democracy was attempted to be crushed. 'To save her post and to continue to be in power, Indira Gandhi made attempts to crush democracy across the country. It has been 50 years but I still remember that dark day. I was 16 then. Inhumane atrocities were unleashed, the entire nation was turned into a jail. Fundamental rights were snatched. Anyone was jailed. Freedom of Expression was just leaders were jailed but even the Press was misbehaved with, a pillar of democracy was attempted to be crushed at that time so that she continues to be in power', Chouhan said. The Union Minister stated that the people were laid on slabs of ice and with their hands and feet broken. Remembering the Emergency period, Chouhan said that he was president at his school and thought that there would be agitation due to inflation, unemployment and a wrong education system, so he joined the Jayaprakash Narayan movement. However, the Union Minister was jailed under the Defence of India Act and rules and was taken to jail. 'Ordinary workers were jailed were electrocuted, made to lie down on slabs of ice, their hands and feet were broken. I was the president of my school. I felt that there should be an agitation against inflation, unemployment and wrong education system. So, I joined JP Movement. But I was jailed under Defence of India Act and Rules', Chouhan said. The BJP MP from Vidisha believed that the people who raised their voice against the 'murder of democracy' carried out a movement for its reinstatement; meanwhile, the ones who were sent to jail led the third movement for freedom. Chouhan recalled that he was not allowed to attend the last rites of her grandmother who had died during the Emergency period. He further stated that those who raised their voice to protect democracy should be called 'loktantra senani'. 'Those who raised their voice against the murder of democracy, those who carried out a movement for the reinstatement of democracy, those who went to jail to protect the Constitution - I believe this was the third movement for grandmother fell ill when I was jailed, she died later. There were several leaders who were not allowed to attend 'antim darshan' when the members of their family died. So, those who raised their voice to protect democracy should definitely be called 'loktantra senani'. So, I did this in Madhya Pradesh when I was CM,' the Union Minister said. The Bharatiya Janata Party is observing the 50th anniversary of the Emergency as the 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'. India was placed under a state of Emergency from June 25, 1975, to March 21 1977, following the implementation of Article 352 of the constitution. (ANI)
The Print
11 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Emergency showed extent of executive power. 50 years on, it's still embedded in Constitution
The Constitution itself was designed at a time of immense political, social, and economic upheaval. There were a multitude of challenges around secession, religious integration and communalism because of Partition, the integration of 550 princely states, which made up two-fifths of India, and widespread poverty. The resulting constitutional setup gave the Union government sweeping powers to convert the country into a unitary state. The State, consequently, while giving fundamental rights and freedoms to citizens, could also revoke these through emergency provisions, the office of the governor, money bills, ordinances and in some cases, just ordinary legislation. However, it may not be an aberration, but a logical conclusion of executive power, given the structure and setup of the Indian state itself. The declaration, which was accorded through vague wording within the Constitution in Article 352, was compounded by a flurry of legislation to support the implementation of a dictatorial state. It underscores the ease with which the Union could legally override the separation of powers and curb fundamental rights with limited judicial, legal or citizen oversight. Fifty years on, the broader legacy of the Emergency is the fragility of rights, and checks and balances. If anything, India's democratic successes may be viewed as a miracle, stemming from well-meaning actors, rather than legislation and policy action itself. About 50 years ago, on 28 June 1975, a small, 22-word obituary in The Times of India read, 'O'Casey, D.E.M., beloved husband of T. Ruth, loving father of L.I. Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justicia, expired on June 26,' highlighting a fundamental shift in India's fledgling experiment with democracy. The Emergency was indeed a watershed moment in India's history, and viewed by many as a blot on India's largely democratic traditions. When the Constitution was controversially amended for the first time in 1951, impositions were placed on fundamental rights and free speech. It also enshrined a mechanism, the 9th Schedule. Laws placed in this schedule are not subject to judicial review, a feature used to override unfavourable judicial decisions and to shield the executive from scrutiny. Indira Gandhi used this schedule to overturn her suspension as a member of parliament. Also read: West read Emergency wrong. India's democracy mattered little to US, UK, Russia Existing provisions Throughout India's early years, wars with Pakistan and China allowed the government to declare states of 'external emergency,' which worked to suspend fundamental rights. They were backed by laws that expanded state power, from the Defence of India Act to the Preventive Detention Act. Christoffe Jaffrelot and Pratinav Anil in India's First Dictatorship: The Emergency, 1975-1977, and Srinath Raghavan in Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India, highlight the emphasis Indira Gandhi put on making sure all emergency provisions and actions had a veneer of legality attached to them to reiterate the legitimacy of her actions. She did not need to introduce new laws to give the Emergency teeth; such provisions already existed. The Sedition provision (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code), the Defence of India Act 1962 (DIA), and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (MISA) all expanded the government's ability to suspend fundamental rights or harass dissidents. The DIA and MISA conferred on the government a wide range of powers to detain and arrest individuals, and limit their ability to challenge their detention in the courts. These also allowed warrantless searches and wiretapping to occur. The government could determine 'protected areas' and 'prohibited places,' limiting the movement of people, and violating the right to free movement and protest. These laws notwithstanding, the executive made the process the punishment, a feature that has dominated the Indian state since. Coomi Kapoor, in The Emergency: A Personal History, noted, 'an ugly feature of arrests and detentions under DIA [and MISA] was the immediate rearrest of persons released on bail.' Once the Emergency was lifted in 1977, Indira Gandhi lost power, and a motley coalition under the Janata Party introduced the 43rd and 44th amendments to raise the threshold to declare an emergency, and repealed some of the other controversial legislation enabling Indira Gandhi's hold on power. However, other features still remained in force, allowing the executive to expand its power. In times of crisis, emergency powers may be helpful to respond quickly, but the Constitution does not always provide clear opportunities for oversight from other branches of government that are critical to ensure accountability. During Covid-19, the Union was able to bypass the federal structure by unilaterally imposing a lockdown through ordinary legislation, rather than declaring an emergency (which would have required parliamentary oversight). This was partly because India lacks a dedicated framework to regulate public health emergencies. Containment measures became convenient tools of control and an excuse to suspend civil liberties, as seen with dwindling protests and arrests. The right to privacy was surrendered in the name of containment and contact tracing. This is not to say that such measures were unnecessary, but their legal basis matters. By using laws like the Disaster Management Act 2005, which was not designed for pandemics and is not subject to prior parliamentary review, the Union was able to suspend the freedom of movement and derive secondary powers to amend other laws like the Essential Commodities Act without any legislative or judicial oversight. Also read: Modi govt's assault on democracy is more sinister than the Emergency. Look at the differences Legacy of Emergency Another key feature of the Indian Constitution is its quasi-federal nature, according power to states over certain issues, while allowing the Union to take control if needed. Under Article 356, the Union government can override state rights by dismissing a state government and imposing President's Rule. Since 1947, it has been invoked more than 130 times, with the greatest number of instances being when Indira Gandhi was in power (50 times between 1966-1977 and 1980-1984), followed by the Janata Party (20 times between 1977-1980). It finally took a 1994 Supreme Court judgment to curtail the scope of President's rule. Nonetheless, the Union has been able to exert power over states through fiscal centralisation and the governor's office. Over the past decade, fiscal centralisation via delays in GST compensation, non-shared cesses, and discretionary transfers has undermined state capacity and made states more dependent on the Union, as seen in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab. Though fully legal, such measures do undermine state rights. Fiscal centralisation has been accompanied by political standoffs. Governors have, of late, withheld assent on key bills passed by state legislatures, or blocked state appointments using powers accorded in the Constitution itself. Ongoing issues between non-NDA ruled states and the Union stem from the fact that governors, who are appointed by the Union, could employ a pocket veto on legislation by not assenting to it or forwarding it to the President for a decision. It took a Supreme Court judgment earlier this year to build timelines and processes into how long a governor or the President can block legislation passed by a state government. There are other areas where state control undermines the democratic ethos of the Constitution, especially when weaponised. Anti-terror and preventive detention laws—a hallmark of India's history since Independence—have had their powers expanded with the UAPA, PMLA, and earlier with TADA. This is not to say every government has unjustly used these laws, but to highlight the ease with which civil rights can be taken away if desired. Executive power has ebbed and flowed since the Emergency. During the coalition era from 1989–2014, a weaker Union allowed for cooperative federalism to emerge. States had a stronger say, and key initiatives to decentralise power away from the Union were introduced, from the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, to the Right to Information Act. Even as the Union yielded some of its power, anti-terror laws and financial regulation shifted power away from the citizen back to the state, and fiscal centralisation has become a weapon to use against non-NDA-ruled states. If the Emergency showed the extent of executive power, it is clear that the source of such power is embedded in India's constitutional setup; this is the legacy that India must contend with, 50 years on. Vibhav Mariwala writes about political economy, history, and the institutions that shape our world. He works on public policy and global macro between London and Mumbai and tweets @ are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Niti paper for defence laws' update to boost 'Make in India'
A Niti Aayog working paper has proposed changes to defence laws to facilitate a resilient domestic supply chain for in-house manufacturing and address challenges of cybersecurity more comprehensively. Amidst evolving geopolitical tensions, cybersecurity threats and global supply chain disruption, the paper said this is vital for national security and operational readiness. The security and law division of the Aayog has proposed these changes. The other suggestions include strategies to enhance economic competitiveness and growth, global partnerships and strategic influence, and legal reforms and good governance. The working paper is under review by the top officials of the Aayog and could soon be shared with stakeholder ministries for consideration and action. "A strong security framework is essential for long-term peace and prosperity. This involves modernising defence forces, enhancing cybersecurity infrastructure and improving border security," it said, adding it is crucial to strengthen internal security to address threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks and internal conflicts. The proposed amendment to the Defence of India Act (1962) seeks to address cyber resilience, supply chain security and geopolitical risks. The paper also calls for the enhancement of the Defence Production and Export Policy (2020) to provide incentives for domestic manufacturers and simplify export regulations. It has proposed a review committee for periodic updates to defence procurement and cybersecurity laws. Revision of Defence Acquisition Procedures (2020) is suggested to simplify procurement processes and mandate domestic sourcing for critical components. "Introduce blockchain-based legal frameworks for supply chain tracking, contract integrity and compliance automation, and enforce mandatory cybersecurity audits while imposing penalties for non-compliance," it added. "Additionally, India should strengthen international defence cooperation through technology transfers, strategic alliances with countries like the US, Russia and Israel, and joint cybersecurity initiatives to counter emerging digital threats," it suggested. India's annual defence production stood at ₹1,27,265 crore in 2023-24, an increase of 174% from ₹46,429 crore in 2014-15 and the target is to achieve ₹3 lakh crore of indigenous production by 2029. Other proposals include structural reforms to simplify taxation, reduce bureaucracy and create a more investor-friendly environment.
Time of India
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Kalyan tower on defence land? HC orders inquiry
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Thursday directed the Thane collector to conduct an inquiry to determine if land on Shri Malang Road, Kalyan (E), on which a 28-storey residential building, Davakhar Elegance , stands, is defence land. The court frowned at the defence authorities for not taking "preventive action". "You have to do something about this. We see that in Pune, Kalyan… everywhere we have seen," said Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik. They were hearing a PIL filed in 2023 by activists Rajendranath Pandey and Sujeet Kadam to stop the ongoing construction and to constitute a committee headed by a retired HC judge to investigate construction permission given by Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) on land belonging to the Defence Ministry. The petition stated the land in Pisavli village was acquired under the Defence of India Act and compensation was paid to its owners between 1943-45. In April 2018, the KDMC commissioner granted M/s Davakhar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd permission to construct a residential building on it. In May 2019, the defence estate officer (DEO) wrote to the commissioner that no proposal for construction on defence land be approved under any circumstances and all such approval/sanction must be cancelled forthwith. The DEO also wrote to record its name as the owner of the land. The commissioner replied that the land was already under de-requisition and in view of no clarity on the exact land of defence, mutation cannot be done. In Aug 2021, KDMC issued revised building permissions. Between 2022-23, petitioners made various representations. Their advocates, Ahmed Abdi and Eknath Dhokale, said the Ministry unequivocally stated the land belongs to it. Senior advocate A S Khandeparkar, for the Ministry, said the developer could not construct upon it. KDMC's advocate, Sandip Shinde, said permission was given acting on revenue records that showed it is not defence land. Senior advocate Ram Apte, for the developer, said it is a development agreement with the landowners. Therefore, the judges directed the collector to "conduct a detailed inquiry… and determine the nature" of the land after hearing all parties on May 8. Depending on the outcome of the proceeding, the KDMC chief shall take "appropriate action" on building permission granted to Davakhar. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within four months. The judges questioned what preventive action was taken by defence authorities, adding, "you come here when a PIL is filed". Khandeparkar said, "Apart from writing, they have not done anything." He would instruct the DEO that "appropriate action has to be taken at the appropriate stage so that this does not happen."
