Latest news with #Emergencyof1975
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Emergency Detainees Honoured On 50th Anniversary
1 2 Nagpur: On the 50th anniversary of one of India's darkest political chapters, the Emergency of 1975, the state govt, along with the district administration, felicitated those who chose imprisonment over silence. At the ceremony held at the Zilla Niyojan Bhavan on Wednesday, hundreds of former prisoners, now in their 70s, 80s, and even 90s, gathered for a moment that was long overdue, holding hands of their young family members who were not even born at the time of the Emergency. The honour included certificates of appreciation in recognition of their resistance against the suppression of democratic freedoms during the 21-month Emergency. Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis , who was in the state capital for a similar function for emergency detainees, sent a congratulatory message that was read aloud by tehsildar Santosh Khande. "Those who chose to go to jail during the Emergency saved India's democracy," Fadnavis said in his message, adding, "Their defiance against the dictatorship protected the spirit of free expression and constitutional values. On Samvidhan Hatya Diwas, we reaffirm our commitment to safeguarding democracy. " Veterans like Bindumadhav alias Banduji Dev, Umabai Pimpalkar, Devendra Vaidya and Sandhyatai Pandit were among those present. "We faced humiliation back then, but today's honour restores that dignity. This ceremony is not just for us; it's for the next generation to remember what was fought for," Dev said. A photo exhibition depicting the struggle during the Emergency was inaugurated by the veterans. Rare photographs, archival material, and personal stories of political prisoners like Shripad Risaldar, Jayant Puranik, Pushpatai Totade and others were on display. District collector Vipin Itankar, Zilla Parishad CEO Vinayak Mahamuni, additional commissioner Tejusingh Pawar and other senior officials presented the certificates on behalf of the state. A documentary film based on exclusive interviews with former detainees was also unveiled, offering an emotional lens into the lives impacted by the Emergency's clampdown on civil liberties. The event concluded with heartfelt acknowledgements from district information officer Vinod Rapatwar. The programme was hosted and coordinated by tehsildars Snehlata Medhe Patil and Shraddha Bagrao.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Emergency black day in history of independent India: CM
Patna: CM Nitish Kumar on Wednesday said the Emergency of 1975 symbolised the dictatorship of the then Union govt led by Indira Gandhi and its imposition marked a "black day in the history of independent India. " " We all remember the day of June 25, 1975, when a state of emergency was declared in the country. It is referred to as a 'black day' in the history of independent India. The emergency of 1975 symbolised the dictatorship of the then govt. During the emergency, the freedom of expression of the people was restricted," Nitish said in a post on social media on completion of 50 years of the imposition of the state of emergency. "Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan initiated a movement against the emergency. I, along with many of my colleagues, participated in this movement and actively opposed the emergency. All of us who raised our voices against the dictatorship were imprisoned. However, the citizens of the country demonstrated unity and courage. Together, we fought the battle," Nitish wrote in his post. Nitish was first arrested during the emergency from Dubauli village in Bhojpur district where he had gone to participate in a meeting under the leadership of veteran social leader Ram Ekbal Singh Warsi. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like You might be interested in the content above Undo He was then a student leader. "You all know that the essence of democracy lies in the voice of the people. It is our responsibility to protect it under all circumstances. Bihar has always paved its path of development with the spirit of the Constitution, justice, freedom, and social justice. Let us remain committed to being vigilant and ready to defend the ideals of the Constitution," the CM said in his post. Talking to reporters in Patna on Wednesday, senior Congress leader B K Hariprasad, however, defended the Emergency imposed by the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, asserting that she did it following constitutional norms to suppress anti-national forces. "It was imposed to suppress the anti-national forces in the country. After the Emergency, the people of the country elected the Congress in the elections held in 1980 and even after that," Hariprasad told reporters here. The Article 352 of the Constitution "clearly states that Emergency can be imposed when there is an external attack or internal disturbance in the country. She (Indira Gandhi) did it legally. Whereas, India is now experiencing an undeclared Emergency under PM Narendra Modi," Prasad said.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Youth today cannot afford to be unaware of Emergency: Vice President Dhankhar
Dehradun: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Wednesday termed the Emergency of 1975 as the 'darkest period' in Indian democracy and called on today's youth to understand its implications so such a chapter is never repeated. He was addressing students and faculty members as the chief guest at the Golden Jubilee celebrations of Kumaon University in Nainital. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar (File Photo) 'Youth today cannot afford to be unaware of the Emergency. A lakh and forty thousand people were put behind bars. They had no access to the justice system, no means to vindicate their Fundamental Rights,' he said Recalling the judicial response to the Emergency, Dhankhar highlighted that nine high courts had ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be suspended, even during a state of emergency. However, he noted with concern that the Supreme Court reversed those verdicts, ruling that the declaration and duration of Emergency were solely executive decisions and beyond judicial review. 'It was a major setback to the people at large,' he said. Dhankhar also referred to Justice HR Khanna's historic dissent, the only judge on the Supreme Court bench to uphold civil liberties during the Emergency. 'A leading American newspaper wrote that if democracy ever returns to Bharat, a monument will surely be built for HR Khanna,' he said. Observing June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas', Dhankar urged students to learn about the erosion of democratic rights that occurred during the Emergency. 'Those who were jailed went on to become Prime Ministers and Presidents of the country. You are the most vital stakeholders in democracy. The government has thoughtfully decided that this day will serve as a reminder — so it never happens again,' he said. Describing the Emergency as an 'earthquake that shook democracy,' Dhankhar recalled how the then Prime Minister, after facing an adverse high court ruling, pushed for the Emergency for personal gain, sidelining the Cabinet and overriding constitutional values. 'The night was dark, and the declaration was signed. What followed for nearly two years was unimaginable — a period that must never be forgotten,' he said. Speaking on higher education, Dhankhar underscored the transformative potential of campus learning. 'Academic institutions are not just for earning degrees. They are the organic crucibles of innovation, ideation, and national change. Fear of failure should never stand in the way of creativity,' he said. Dhankar also emphasised the importance of alumni networks and their contributions in strengthening institutions. Citing global examples, he noted that some institutions abroad have alumni endowment funds exceeding $50 billion. 'If 1 lakh alumni of Kumaon University contribute ₹ 10,000 annually, you generate ₹ 100 crore a year. It will make the institution self-sustaining and help build stronger alumni connections,' he said, urging the university to take the lead in launching a formal alumni association from 'Dev Bhoomi.'
Hans India
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
A mirror of the present, say Opposition leaders as India marks 50 years since Emergency
New Delhi: As India observes 50 years since the declaration of the Emergency, key Opposition leaders from the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and Shiv Sena (UBT) on Wednesday launched a scathing attack on the ruling BJP, alleging that the authoritarianism of the present government mirrors that in 1975. RJD MP Manoj Jha called June 25, 1975 a 'dark chapter' in India's democratic journey, but cautioned against reducing it to a historical footnote. 'This day should be a mirror, not a memory,' Jha told IANS. 'I've written today itself, if Ramnath Goenka were alive, he'd ask media houses not to turn this into a symbolic day. We must ask – what is the current situation? People are jailed for speaking up. Criticism of one individual is seen as criticism of the country.' Jha argued that authoritarianism now thrives under the guise of democracy. 'There's barely any difference between the dictatorship of that era and what we are witnessing today. Whenever you criticise someone else's past, hold up a mirror to your present,' he added. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ayodhya Poul Patil said that while the Emergency of 1975 was declared officially, the present day reflects an 'undeclared Emergency' in action. 'Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had at least declared it. Today, over the past 11 years, we've seen a silent, creeping Emergency. People are picked up arbitrarily, central agencies like the CBI, ED are unleashed without reason, and even small financial transfers of Rs 10 or Rs 100 are under scrutiny. This is no less than an undeclared Emergency," she told IANS. Congress leader Vijay Wadettiwar criticised the BJP for 'celebrating' the day while allegedly trampling the very Constitution they claim to uphold. Speaking to IANS, Wadettiwar said, 'The way BJP is observing this day, not as a day of reflection, but as a moment to divert attention from how they are killing the Constitution meant for future generations. They are the same people who never participated in the freedom struggle, who sided with the British, and who opposed Babasaheb Ambedkar while framing the Constitution.' He added that the BJP's ideological ancestors attempted to bring in the Manusmriti instead of the Constitution, and sought to deny voting rights to women and the poor. 'Those who never believed in the Constitution, who talk of changing it openly, and who undermine it daily, are today speaking of protecting it. How ironic is that?' he told. The Emergency, imposed on the night of June 25, 1975, came just days after the Allahabad High Court invalidated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's 1971 Lok Sabha election, prompting massive protests led by Jayaprakash Narayan. The next morning, senior Opposition leaders including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, and Devi Lal were arrested under the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). In a sweeping crackdown, not just Opposition figures but even internal critics from within the Congress, like Chandra Shekhar and Krishan Kant, were jailed. Civil liberties were suspended, Press freedom was crushed, and thousands of ordinary citizens were imprisoned, their lives thrown into turmoil.
The Wire
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Dhankhar Says ‘Parliament is Supreme' But What Does the Constitution Say?
Amid widespread criticism of his remarks last week in which he referred to Article 142 of the constitution as a 'nuclear missile against democratic forces' , Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar doubled down and renewed his attack on the judiciary on Tuesday (April 22) to hold that it is the parliament that is 'supreme'. Dhankhar sought to address the criticism he had faced and said that the 'constitution is for the people and its repository of safeguarding is that of elected representatives'. He also drew upon the 1975 Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi and called it the 'darkest period in human history of the democratic world' as the Supreme Court echoed the executive to hold that it is the sole arbitrator of fundamental rights which can be suspended by it. However, he then contended that there is 'no visualisation in the constitution of any authority above parliament.' Last week, Dhankhar's remarks had come as a response to the landmark judgement by the Supreme Court when it set a deadline for the President to decide on bills referred by governors of states, and said that Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi's withholding of assent over 10 bills and reserving them for the President's assent was illegal. Dhankhar's remarks on Tuesday included contradictory statements as it ignores the constitutional scheme itself which holds that the constitution is supreme, and the parliament itself is its creation, not otherwise. Dhankhar brings up Emergency Speaking at an event in Delhi University, Dhankhar criticised the Supreme Court by drawing attention to the Emergency of 1975. Dhankhar said that the Supreme Court had ignored the verdicts of nine high courts then that had held that fundamental rights cannot be put on hold. 'Nine high court verdicts were uniform that in democracy fundamental rights can never be put on hold, access to judiciary cannot be moderated, much less denied being a fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution,' he said. 'But that was done. What was held by the Supreme Court? The executive of the day is the sole arbitrator of fundamental rights and it can suspend them for as much time as it likes. There was one dissent voice. Dissent and decent – and that emanated from an alumnus from this place,' he added. Dhankhar was referring to the 1976 ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla case in which the Supreme Court by a 4:1 majority set aside nine high court judgements, which had ruled in favour of enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. Justice H.R. Khanna, the sole dissenter, was the uncle of present Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. While Dhankhar's criticism of the Supreme Court in the case holds, he went on to contend that Parliament is 'supreme' and that the prime minister who had imposed Emergency was 'held accountable' after elections in 1977, in which Indira Gandhi lost. 'A prime minister, who imposed Emergency, was held accountable in 1977. And therefore, let there be no doubt about it, the constitution is for the people and its repository of safeguarding is that of elected representatives,' said Dhankhar. He added, 'They are the ultimate masters as to what constitutional content will be. There is no visualisation in the constitution of any authority above Parliament. Parliament is supreme and that being the situation, let me tell you, it is as supreme as every individual in the country. Part of 'we the people' is an atom in democracy and that atom has atomic power. And that atomic power is reflected during elections and that is why we are a democratic nation.' Ignores Emergency's excesses in parliament While criticising the Emergency and holding parliament to be supreme, Dhankhar did not however make any mention of the excesses by parliament itself during the period that deepened the Emergency. The Parliament had passed a slew of amendments to the constitution that stripped judicial powers and concentrated it in the hands of Parliament. These included The Constitution (Thirty-eighth Amendment) Act that barred judicial review of the Emergency and The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act that took away the power of the Supreme Court to try electoral disputes concerning the President and Vice President, vested this power in a separate body and gave immunity to the Prime Minister from electoral laws in a bid to nullify the Allahabad high court's order that had struck down Gandhi's election on the grounds of electoral malpractice. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act , another excess during the period, inserted the words 'sovereign secular socialist democratic republic' in the Preamble but also stripped the judiciary of its right to hear election petitions, gave wide ranging powers to Parliament to amend the Constitution which would remain outside the ambit of judicial review. It also provided that any law passed by Parliament to implement directive principles would not be subject to judicial review. 'Only constitution is supreme' While Dhankhar has sought to pit one organ of the government against the other, according to constitutional experts, the constitution itself is supreme. 'The parliament, the executive, and the judiciary are all creations of the Constitution and therefore none of these institutions are supreme; it is only the constitution that is supreme. And this has been clarified by various Supreme Court judgements and it is a settled position. For instance Parliament can amend many things but not the basic structure. That is the limitation imposed on parliament on the judiciary because the judiciary's job is to interpret the constitution,' said former Lok Sabha secretary general P.D.T. Achary. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which upheld the basic structure doctrine and placed limits on the power of the parliament to amend the constitution. A 13-judge constitution bench ruled 6:7 to hold that the Constitution of India has a basic structure that cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment. The court held that the Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and that it cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution including principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The court held that while there is no rigid separation of powers, the Constitution itself creates a 'system of checks and balances' by distributing powers between the three organs of government so that one cannot become predominant over others. 'We are unable to see how the power of judicial review makes the judiciary supreme in any sense of the word. This power is of paramount importance in a federal Constitution. Indeed it has been said that the heart and core of a democracy lies in the judicial process,' the court had observe d in the case. 'Parliament under constitution, not over or above it' According to Faizan Mustafa, constitutional law expert and vice-chancellor of the Chanakya National Law University, unlike the British Constitution, the primacy of the parliament has not been adopted in India. 'The framers of the Indian Constitution have not adopted the supremacy of the parliament doctrine as in Britain. Indian parliament is under the Constitution it is not over or above the Constitution. The Indian parliament is a creation of the Constitution. It is like any other authority subordinate to the Constitution. We have supremacy of the Constitution not of parliament,' he said. 'To maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, the constitutional design adopted by us is that the parliament can pass a law but the constitutionality of that law can be challenged in constitutional courts and if the law or any provisions of that law are found to be in contravention of the constitution or fundamental rights of citizens the constitutional courts would be well within their role to strike down that provision as unconstitutional.' Mustafa said that the power of judicial review 'is an integral part of the supremacy of the constitution as the Constituent Assembly representing the will of Indian people has given this power to the courts'. 'Because you can't be challenging the decisions of parliament in the parliament, you cannot be challenging the decisions of parliament in the executive which commands the majority. All the bills passed in parliament are piloted by the government. Therefore there was no option but to give this responsibility to an independent judiciary to ensure the supremacy of the constitution,' he said. The constitutional scheme while not explicitly including separation of powers includes a system of checks and balances and separation of functions. 'Therefore a law passed by parliament can be struck down by courts, judges can be impeached by parliament, president is elected by the elected representatives in state assemblies but can be impeached by parliament, no confidence motion can be brought in the Lok Sabha or in Vidhan Sabhas against chief ministers. So the constitutional design is constitutionalism which is of limited governance. Even the Supreme Court is not supreme. They also cannot go beyond the powers given to them by the Constitution,' said Mustafa.
