Latest news with #FakhruddinAliAhmed
Time of India
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
At 50, Urdu Academy faces uncertain future
It was April 20, 1975. Excitement filled Durbar Hall at Raj Bhavan, the governor's majestic, sea-facing residence in South Mumbai. A galaxy of stars from the city's literary firmament descended to witness a momentous event: the inauguration of the Maharashtra State Urdu Academy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Marathi is my mother tongue. It runs in my veins. But I also take pride in the fact that I was born in an area where Urdu took root. I initially studied in Urdu. If I am accused of loving Urdu…so be it. There is a close bond between Marathi and Urdu. And I thought of establishing the Urdu Academy so that the two languages can be brought closer," declared then CM Shankarrao Chavan. Sharing the dais with him were then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Maharashtra Governor Ali Yavar Jung, Jammu and Kashmir CM Sheikh Abdullah, and minister-scholar Dr Rafiq Zakaria. Now, at 50, as the Maharashtra State Urdu Academy prepares to mark its golden jubilee, a few fondly recall the grand inaugural event. Noted linguist, scholar and retired Urdu professor Abdus Sattar Dalvi, 88, was perhaps the youngest among the 21-member inaugural board or committee of the Academy. "It was the fulfilment of a cherished dream of Urduwallas in the state—a promise made by both PM Indira Gandhi and Shankarrao Chavan," recalls Dalvi, who is now frail and battling old age-related illnesses at his Mira Road flat. "If we had Urdu giants like Ali Sardar Jafri, Krishan Chandar, Ismat Chughtai and Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, the Urdu Academy also boasted Marathi literary legends like Setu Madhavrao Pagdi, Shreepad Joshi and Vidyadhar Gokhale." If Urdu lovers were enthused to hear Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who came from the family of iconic poet Mirza Ghalib, they were surprised by Sheikh Abdullah, whose home state Jammu & Kashmir was then the only state with Urdu as its official language. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "I have planned to build guesthouses for writers and poets where they can stay and enjoy my beautiful state's convivial climate," Abdullah had said in his speech. We do not know if a guesthouse exclusively for writers and poets ever came up. What is certain and a bit worrying is the precarious present of the Urdu Academy. Located at the Old Custom House, a heritage building near the iconic Asiatic Society Library, the Urdu Academy is a shadow of its former self. Its cluttered and understaffed office faces another threat: eviction. "We have received a notice from the culture department which says it has to accommodate an Academy of a different language. We have written to the General Administration Department to allocate an alternative place," says the Academy's executive officer Shoeb Hashmi. With no committee in place since 2020, burreaucrats call the shots. Shocked by the Academy's imminent "homelessness", a furious Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh complained to minority development minister Dattatray Bharne. "Why should the Urdu Academy be moved out to make space for another Academy?" asks Shaikh. "If at all it is moved, a better office at a more prominent site must be given. The minister has promised to investigate it." Bharne told TOI: "I am not aware of any such notice. I am currently in my village in Pune district and will sort it out once I return." Former minority department minister Anees Ahmed is livid: "At a time when some justifiably demand the preservation of Marathi's pride, the Urdu Academy must function fully to bring Marathi and Urdu closer." Mahim Samaritan Mudassar Patel, who successfully advocated for the appointment of teachers at two Urdu teachers' training colleges, hopes "the chief minister will not let down a beautiful language like Urdu." As the Academy built on dreams of linguistic harmony turns 50, its supporters hope the institution won't be left without a roof over its head.
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Safeguarding liberty: Lessons from the Emergency
On June 25, 1975, the then President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, issued a proclamation in exercise of powers under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India, declaring an Emergency on the ground of internal disturbances. A letter has been displayed in the Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya in New Delhi, addressed by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, to the President on June 25, 1975, making an earnest request to him to issue a proclamation under Article 352(1) of the Constitution on the same day. It records that there is 'an imminent danger to the security of India being threatened by internal disturbance.' A draft of the proclamation was forwarded along with the letter with a request that 'such a proclamation should be issued tonight'. The letter records the assurance of the Prime Minister to the President that 'I shall mention the matter to the Cabinet first thing tomorrow morning.' The Prime Minister stated in the letter that she was 'condoning or permitting a departure from the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.' Accordingly, the then President issued the Proclamation that very night. The letter indicates that when the Emergency proclamation was issued, there was no cabinet recommendation for declaring the Emergency. Article 74(1) of the Constitution, as it stood before January 3, 1977, provided that the President should act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, and not the Prime Minister alone. Despite a slew of restrictions during the Emergency, acts of protest, though limited, emerged. (HT ARCHIVE) On July 22, 1975, a bill to amend the Constitution was introduced and was passed by Parliament. The bill became the Constitution (38th Amendment) Act, 1975. This amendment was a drastic one, as it barred judicial review of the proclamation of an Emergency by incorporating clause (5) into Article 352. The inclusion of clause (5) was a significant departure from the original constitutional provisions, as it effectively prevented the judiciary from reviewing the validity of the Emergency. Fortunately, clause (5) was deleted by the 44th amendment with effect from 20th June 1977, restoring the power of judicial review and reaffirming the principle of constitutional checks and balances. When the Emergency was declared, I had just completed my school education and had joined a junior college. If I recall correctly, due to the disconnection of the supply of electricity on the night of June 25, 1975, some of the leading newspapers in Delhi could not be published on June 26 in the morning. Some newspapers published evening editions on June 26, 1975. I still remember that on June 27,1975, newspapers carried headlines that prominent leaders Jay Prakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar, Ashok Mehta, Lal Krishna Advani and several other leaders as well as activists were put behind bars by the government by exercising the power of preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,1971 (the MISA). In addition to the arrest of the leaders, strict press censorship was imposed. An atmosphere of terror was created due to these events. However, notwithstanding the police raj during the emergency, there were people who protested. I remember that immediately on the proclamation of Emergency, one of the leading national newspapers adopted a novel way of symbolic protest by keeping the editorial column blank. Some activists began an underground movement to protest against the Emergency. Due to censorship, the citizens were deprived of knowing what was happening in our country. Some activists started distributing handbills containing the uncensored news. There were some protests in the form of satyagrahas. As the Constitution was subverted by introducing drastic amendments beginning with the 38th Amendment, a situation was created by the rulers that ensured there were no large-scale protests. The proclamation led to serious consequences. Immediately after the declaration of Emergency, many states imposed pre-censorship by exercising the powers under the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution, as it stood then, conferred power on the President to declare that right to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and proceedings pending in any court for enforcement of the rights so mentioned, shall remain suspended for the period within which the proclamation of Emergency is in force. An order was made by the Hon'ble President on June 27, 1975, in exercise of the said power, declaring that the right of any person (including a foreigner) to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended. Even pending proceedings in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned fundamental rights were suspended. After about five months from the proclamation of Emergency, it was realised that a citizen could move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, on January 8, 1976, the President again exercised the power under Clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution and declared that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 19 and all pending proceedings in any court for enforcement thereof, shall remain suspended during the proclamation of Emergency. Writ petitions seeking writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed in various high courts by the political leaders who were detained under the MISA. The defence taken by the government was that in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975, the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Article 14, 21 and 22 was suspended, and therefore, the habeas corpus petitions were not maintainable. There were high courts that were bold enough to take the view that, notwithstanding the Presidential Order, petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus were maintainable. These high courts were of Allahabad, Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan. Some other high courts took a contrary view and held that writ petitions seeking writ of Habeas Corpus were not maintainable. By a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced on April 28, 1976, in the case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, which showed the judiciary in poor light, the majority held that no person had locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before high court for writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or order or direction to enforce the right of personal liberty of a person detained under MISA on the ground that the detention or the continued detention is for any reason not under or in compliance with MISA or is otherwise illegal or mala fide. As a result, a large number of detainees who were illegally detained were deprived of their remedies under the Constitution. There was a famous dissent in the said case by justice HR Khanna, who held that Article 21 cannot be considered the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. He held that notwithstanding the Presidential Order of June 27, 1975, maintainability of the habeas corpus petitions to question the legality of the preventive detention orders was not affected. Justice HR Khanna had to pay a considerable price for the dissent. He was superseded, and a judge junior to him was appointed as the Chief Justice of India. This led to justice Khanna's resignation. This decision considerably damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court. It lost an excellent opportunity to give a clear and loud signal to the rulers that it will always uphold liberty at any cost. Unfortunately, the majority decision continued to hold the field for more than 40 years till it was overturned on 24th August 2017 in KS Puttaswamy's case by a larger bench. Apart from justice some great judges fearlessly upheld the rights of individuals before and after the decision of the Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. A significant judgment of the Bombay high court was before the verdict in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. It was by justice Vimal Dalal, who was heading a bench of the Bombay high court in the case of Bhanudas Krishna Gawde v. KG Paranjpe. This case arose out of a petition for habeas corpus filed by a detenu who was preventively detained under MISA. A very strong objection was raised based on the presidential declaration dated June 27, 1975, under Clause (1) of Article 359. Before justice Vimal Dalal, the counsel for the detainee stated that certain grounds based on violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution were waived. Still, the respondent raised an objection that the proceedings of the writ petition, based on the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21, which were pending on June 27, 1975, stood suspended and cannot be revived by such concessions made by the counsel for the petitioners. Justice Vimal Dalal held that this argument was of no substance. Interestingly, he observed that 'what is suspended is not dead'. Then came an argument on behalf of the State that the petitioner does not have any legal right which he could enforce by writ in the nature of Mandamus, other than the right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Shockingly, the state government also argued that if the conditions of the detention order contained a clause stating that detainees were not allowed to eat any food, it still could not be challenged before the court by way of a petition under Article 226, so long as the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975 was operational. The proclamation of Emergency emboldened the state counsel to make this shocking submission. Justice Vimal Dalal rejected the argument by holding that 'It is beyond doubt that by a writ of Mandamus the court can not only compel the performance of a statutory duty, but can also compel public authorities to forbear from acting in violation or breach of a statute……..' Justice Vimal Dalal did not stop there, and he declared that if a detainee's liberty has been restricted in contravention of or in derogation from the law under which they were detained, the high court can issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Another bold decision came on October 9, 1975, by justice C.S. Dharmadhikari of the Bombay high court; while heading a division bench, he decided a case of Krishna Madaorao Ghatate and Anr. v. The Union of India and others. This was again a petition for habeas corpus to challenge the order of preventive detention under MISA. After referring to the Presidential Order of June 27, 1975, justice Dharmadhikari held that an inference cannot be drawn that a person is not entitled to approach the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of habeas corpus. Justice Dharmadhikari proceeded to hold that 'even during the period of Emergency, absolute immunity cannot be claimed from the process of the court if the order is not supported by any valid legislation or a legal sanction…' Even post the decision of ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, a very important decision was pronounced by the Bombay high court on December 7, 1976 in the case of Shridhar Mahadeo Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra by justice V.D. Tulzapurkar. The petition was filed by the managing trustee of a very famous Marathi weekly, Sadhana. It was late Pandurang Sadashiv Sane, affectionately known as Sane Guruji, a freedom fighter, socialist activist, and a staunch follower of Mahatma Gandhi, who founded the Marathi weekly Sadhana. He had always championed the cause of personal liberty. Even during the Emergency, certain articles were published in the weekly criticising the proclamation of Emergency. As a result, eight different orders were passed by the State of Maharashtra under Rule 47 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. Under the said orders, issues of the weekly were proscribed and forfeited to the government on the ground that they contained prejudicial reports. Writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the penalty of proscription and forfeiture of 11 issues of the weekly. The bench, headed by justice Tulzapurkar, dealt with the Presidential Order dated January 8, 1976, which declared that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of rights conferred by Article 19 would remain suspended. The state made an argument that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was suspended and therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Justice Tulzapurkar referred to the majority opinion delivered by justice in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, and held that criminal prosecution has been regarded as falling outside the purview of the Presidential Order of January 8, 1976. Ultimately, he held that, 'In our view, the petitions for challenging the levy of penalties by way of proscription and forfeiture of publications or by way of demand and forfeiture or security deposit or by way of closure of the press whereat such publications have been printed, would stand on the same footing as defending a criminal prosecution and cannot be regarded as any attempt at enforcement of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.' Justice Tulzapurkar entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeded to set aside the impugned orders of proscription and forfeiture of the weekly magazine. By judicial craftsmanship, although remedies to enforce freedom of speech and expression were suspended, justice Tulzapurkar granted relief to the weekly, which was critical of the internal Emergency. Fifty years after the internal Emergency of 1975, we must salute those fearless judges. We will always fondly remember justice H.R. Khanna, who fearlessly upheld the rights of the citizens during the dark days of the Emergency. When he did that, he fully knew that he was writing a dissenting opinion at the cost of inviting his supersession. These judges were true heroes. After the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, an emergency cannot be declared on the grounds of 'internal emergency'. But that does not mean that there is no threat to the ideals and institutions under the Constitution. The Emergency taught us tough lessons. These lessons emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and expression, the necessity of a robust and independent judiciary, and the risks associated with unchecked executive power. Eventually, the citizens taught a lesson to the leaders in power who were responsible for declaring the emergency. After the Emergency proclamation was withdrawn, various political parties with differing ideologies came together to form the Janata Party. In the elections held in the first half of 1977, the voters ensured that the ruling party was defeated. This was the first defeat of the party in power, thirty years after India became independent. This part of the history serves as a glaring example of the power of the people in a democracy and their ability to effect change. Dr. Ambedkar had warned the citizens of India in his last speech on November 25, 1949 before the Constituent Assembly that the success or failure of our Constitution depends on them. He placed a burden on the citizens to protect the Constitution, the institutions established by it, and the ideals enshrined in it. Dr. Ambedkar stated with great emphasis that bhakti, or hero worship, is a sure way to degradation and eventual dictatorship. Unfortunately, we, the people of India, have been ignoring this warning given by the father of the Constitution. The Emergency of 1975 showed how the Constitution itself could be misused to curtail fundamental rights. As we reflect on this darkest chapter in the history of independent India, we must protect, at any cost, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the institutions created by the Constitution, and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. There is always a tendency on the part of every party in power and the executive to attempt to curtail the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which include the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to liberty under Article 21. This can be done even without the proclamation of an Emergency. Apart from the duty of citizens to protect the Constitution, the judicial fraternity, comprising judges and lawyers, bears a greater responsibility to safeguard the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and its ideals. (Justice Abhay S Oka is a former judge of the Supreme Court. The views expressed are personal)
News18
28-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
How Emergency '75 Tried To Distort The Constitution Of India
It was this provision that the then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed depended upon while proclaiming the Emergency on the night of June 25, 1975. 'Internal disturbance" lent itself to a wide-ranging interpretation, including political and civil society movements. The original article contained no proviso that the proclamation of the emergency should be restricted to only affected parts of India. Thus it was proclaimed for the whole of India, even if that were not necessary. Also, in a glaring lapse of parliamentary procedure, President Ahmed's proclamation preceded the cabinet meeting approving the emergency. The proclamation of emergency, Kuldip Nayar informs, was signed at 11.45 pm on June 25, 1975. Indira Gandhi decided to call the meeting of the cabinet at 6 pm on June 26 after returning from the Rashtrapati Bhawan (The Judgement: Inside Story of the Emergency in India, P. 39-41). The proclamation was placed before the cabinet that met at 1, Safdarjung Road—the Prime Minister's official residence—for ex-post facto approval. The arrest of the opposition leaders, as well as the journalists, had gone on with ruthless efficiency in the intervening period. Article 352 has been altered since then, raising the constitutional bar against the sweeping imposition of emergency countrywide as in 1975. Paradoxically, even Indira Gandhi's government has a role in it through the 42nd amendment of the Constitution (1976). The 44th amendment brought in by the Janata Party's government (1978) further conditioned the imposition of emergency. Thus, from the constitutional viewpoint, the imposition of emergency became more difficult. Further, Article 359, which was related to the suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during emergencies, no longer applied to Articles 20 and 21. This meant that the constitutional provisions with regard to protection in respect of conviction of offences, and protection of life and personal liberty, could not be abridged under any circumstances (even if other fundamental rights are suspended under emergency). These changes will be described ahead. II The events described as the causes of the Emergency '75, e.g. students' movement spearheaded by Jay Prakash Narayan, the Allahabad High Court's judgment declaring Indira Gandhi's election from Raebareli parliamentary constituency (1971) as void, etc, were at best immediate causes. Immediate causes only ignite the stockpile of explosive materials already present. The underlying cause of the Emergency '75 was Indira Gandhi's authoritarian style of functioning, which she equated with efficiency. This imbalanced the harmony conceived by the framers of the Constitution, between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. However, a more impersonal reading of the situation was that it represented a 'mid-life crisis of the Constitution" itself. Advertisement Indira Gandhi prioritised directive principles over fundamental rights. She vouched for 'parliamentary supremacy" in sorting out constitutional provisions (which, according to her, impeded the development of India) over judicial interpretation. She felt 'parliamentary supremacy" was necessary to prevent the Constitution from becoming atrophied. Parliament of India must have unlimited authority to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority as and when needed. There was a sudden acceleration in Constitution amendments during her second tenure. During the first two decades of its operation, the Constitution had been amended on 23 occasions. The Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Act, 1969, was notified on January 23, 1970, and came into force the same day. There was no other amendment during the rest of the year, which also witnessed the premature dissolution of the Fourth Lok Sabha. In the Fifth Lok Sabha elections, 1971, Indira Gandhi returned with a huge mandate. During this tenure, which included the Emergency '75 period, the Constitution was amended on 19 occasions. advetisement Her magnum opus enactment was the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, which had often been described as a mini-Constitution. Several of its unwelcome provisions were later neutralised through the 43rd and 44th amendments brought by the Janata Party government. Indira launched her strike with the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971, which was later passed as the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. Herein, her target was the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the IC Golaknath and Ors v State of Punjab (1967) that had denied Parliament the right to amend the Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution even while exercising its powers under Article 368. It was the first time that any authority had held that any portion of the Constitution was impervious to amendment. Indira Gandhi naturally did not appreciate this judicial embargo and wanted to get rid of it at the earliest. However, she could not have the last laugh in the matter. advetisement In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court laid down the concept of 'basic structure" of the Constitution that exercised a cap on Parliament's unlimited amending power. In effect, the 24th Amendment made the provisions of Article 13 subject to the provisions of Article 368 as invalid. The apex court held that the whole of Article 31 C, which abrogates for certain purposes the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, is invalid. The court stated that while ordinarily it had no power to review a constitutional amendment, it could do so if the amendment destroyed or damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. Basic feature, however, is not a finite or quantifiable concept but depends on the merit of the case. III Less than five months after the Emergency '75 had been declared–on November 10, 1975–the Supreme Court constituted a 13-judge bench to hear a plea of the Government of India that the Keshavananda Bharati verdict should be overruled. It was evidently a quid pro quo by Chief Justice AN Ray, who had been elevated to the top position by Indira Gandhi, by superseding three senior-most judges, who resigned in protest (April 1973). Legal luminary Nani A Palkhivala filed a petition against this government plea on the ground that the Keshavananda Bharati judgment was delivered by a full bench of the Supreme Court with proceedings lasting for five months. It would set a wrong precedent whereby even this full bench's judgment might be reconsidered by another full bench in future. Moreover, the time was least opportune, when fundamental rights of the citizens stood abrogated, there was no effective opposition inside Parliament, and most important leaders of the opposition parties were languishing in jail. Nobody could write or speak anything in public that was not acceptable to the government (We, The People P. 187). Due to Palkhivala's forceful advocacy, the bench was dissolved within two days of argument, though nothing was reported in the media due to censorship. Yet, it was a victory, no doubt, which saved the prestige of the judiciary. Having failed to regain unlimited amending power through the legal route and dissatisfied with the tardiness of the parliamentary process, Indira Gandhi contemplated a change in the form of government. The French system appealed best to Indira. Her notorious younger son, Sanjay, overtly pitched for a presidential system, which gave all the power to one person, without the curb of Parliament (The Judgement, P. 114). The Swaran Singh Committee was set up by the AICC to consider suitable changes in the Constitution. Swaran Singh, the former external affairs minister, came out with proposals for extensive changes in the Constitution. 'It would have been worse if I were not there," Swaran Singh later told Kuldip Nayar, 'we buried the presidential system once and for all" (The Judgement, P. 148). The Swaran Singh Committee proposals became the basis of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976, which, on enactment, became the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It was an extensive piece of legislation that sought to (a) amend the Preamble (inserting the expression Socialist Secular) and the Seventh Schedule in addition to around 36 separate articles (b) substitute four articles with new ones, (c) insert two new Parts viz. IVA and XIVA and eleven new articles. Palkhivala describes the legislation as a 'devastating attack on the Constitution". It is a pity that the exercise was undertaken under the guise of the Emergency. When the Janata Party came to power as a result of the Sixth Lok Sabha elections, 1977, it enacted the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which aimed at reversing many of the capricious and detrimental amendments. By a legislative 'surgical strike", to use a present-day popular phrase, the Janata Party government removed the root cause of confusion that had exposed fundamental rights to repeated parliamentary assaults. The 44th amendment did away with 'Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition of Property" in Part III (Fundamental Rights). The Right to Property to another part of the Constitution viz. Part XII thus making it a legal right. The presence of Right to Property (which was actually about land acquisition by the government) in Part III had actually made Fundamental Rights unsafe. The problem was fixed for all times to come. This churning led to an important result. The imposition of emergency under Article 352 became more difficult and conditional. Both Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party contributed to the process. The 42nd amendment made it possible, or desirable, that any emergency was restricted to the affected parts of India rather than being imposed on the whole of India as provided in the original Constitution. The 44th amendment replaced the word 'internal disturbance" with 'armed rebellion". Thus, any civilian protest movement, even if it became violent, could not be used as an excuse to impose emergency. Article 352 (1) now reads as – 'If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression, or armed rebellion, he may, by Proclamation, make a declaration to the effect in respect of whole of India or such part of the territory thereof as may be specified in the Proclamation. Through the 44th amendment, it now became necessary for both Houses of Parliament to approve the emergency by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting before the expiration of one month of Proclamation. Previously, the approval was by simple majority before the expiration of two months. Soli Sorabjee, the then Additional Solicitor General of India, made an insightful observation on the abnormalities in Indira Gandhi's approach to the Constitution amendment. Appearing on All India Radio Spotlight programme on September 23, 1978, Sorabjee stated: 'Our Constitution conceives of the State as existing for its citizens and not the citizens for the State. It recognises the infinite worth of every individual soul because it believes that in a world of variables, it is the individual alone who is timeless. Accordingly, our Constitution ordains that justice — social, economic and political, be achieved without stifling basic freedoms and the dignity of the individual. In other words, without depriving the people of India of their basic human rights." This priceless statement of Soli Sorabjee should be remembered by every government as the key to our constitutional ethos.
Economic Times
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
How the Emergency makes us immune to democracy damage
Agencies Representational Each year at midnight, June 25-26, I wish my mother a very happy birthday. This year, I was late by 15 minutes as I got caught up 'doing the dishes'. I've put that in quotes not because 'doing the dishes' is a euphemism for some nefarious midnight activity involving my sole contact in the PMO, but because putting something like that in quotes can immediately arouse the suspicion of said O, and keep them on their toes. The thing is, my mother's birthday falls on the anniversary of the Emergency. She turned 33 a few minutes after president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed and sent back the draft declaration using provisions of Article 352 of the Constitution to impose an internal emergency. Looking at Abu Abraham's famous cartoon - published some six months into Emergency - of Ali Ahmed stretching out from a Rashtrapati-tub to return pen and paper to an outstretched hand 'symbol' behind the door, I suitably-bootably wonder whether such a cartoon would have passed today. Not so much for its critique of an obsequious nominal head of state, as much for its depiction of a president in his birthday suit. So, even being the luckiest guy to have the least authoritarian of mothers, my mum's birthday is inextricably linked with Emergency. As Srinath Raghavan's illuminating new biography, Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, reveal, an emergency under Article 352 was already in place since December 1971 during the Bangladesh War. But Mrs G wanted a new emergency - her One Big Beautiful Emergency, if you will. Much before June 12, 1975, when Allahabad High Court found her guilty of corruption in the March 1971 general election - a case filed by Raj Narain of Samyukta Socialist Party, whom she defeated by more than 1 lakh votes at Rae Bareli - Gandhi 'came to regard the dangers posed by the RSS' activism as linked to an American-supported attempt at destabilising her government'. Assassination of her aide, cabinet minister, and Congress fundraiser LN Mishra in January 1975 didn't help matters. Gandhi wanted to crack down on RSS, and Ananda Margis, by invoking an all-encompassing emergency even before the Allahabad High Court verdict. As Raghavan reminds us, 'Far from being lawful, the declaration of emergency on 25 June 1975 was a coup d'etat: in the original sense of the term a 'master-stroke of the state,' whose signature elements were surprise and secrecy.' Like every year, the media and its content-providers rolled out thoughts on the Emergency this year, too - the one day that LK Advani is taken out of the freezer and thawed for his 'bend-crawl' aphorism. But for all the righteous horror poured on 'the day democracy died', 50 years on, the Emergency has a new function: as insurance against any charge that India today could possibly be anything other than a model democracy. One extremely handy thing about any 'darkest chapter in history' is that it allows 'dark chapters' to come across as gentle gambols in the park. Take the Jewish holocaust. After that particular Nazi pol science field study, you seriously reckon Israel can be charged of genocide for its 'tough love' with Gaza? With countries like Germany falling for it faster than you can say, 'Fast and the Fuhrious', the upper-cased 'Holocaust' is brought out like garlic and crucifix to drive away any accusation of lower-cased 'holocaust' being carried out by Israeli ghetto-blasters. The same principle holds with our Emergency. Mention any current dodge'n'damage to democratic institutions by the state - whether GoI or state governments - and 'Emergency' is trotted out like Asrani with a toothbrush moustache. Umar Khalid, almost five years in Tihar without a trial, charges against whom have yet to framed in court? 'Pfft. That's nothing compared to what happened during the Emergency'. The other standard rebuttal being, 'Have you seen Pakistan?' Which is why, after 'doing the dishes' with Pontius Pilate diligence, and wishing Ma on Thursday, I realised why so many people are horrified by Donald Trump, his ICEmen, executive orders, sending military to quell protestors, using social media telepathy to weed out bad apples from entering America, his sycophantasmagoric coterie... Poor things, they have no Indira's Emergency to measure Trump's Urgency against, and find phew-relief like we do. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. The bike taxi dreams of Rapido, Uber, and Ola just got a jolt. But they're winning public favour Second only to L&T, but controversies may weaken this infra powerhouse's growth story Punit Goenka reloads Zee with Bullet and OTT focus. Can he beat mighty rivals? 3 critical hurdles in India's quest for rare earth independence HDB Financial may be cheaper than Bajaj Fin, but what about returns? Why Sebi must give up veto power over market infra institutions These large- and mid-cap stocks can give more than 23% return in 1 year, according to analysts Are short-term headwinds from China an opportunity? 8 auto stocks: Time to be contrarian? Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal initiates coverage on Supreme Industries; UBS initiates coverage on PNB Housing
Hans India
27-06-2025
- Science
- Hans India
A déjà vu moment for Indian space odyssey
Call it providence or pure coincidence but June 25 seems to be a day of destiny as regards India from even before it achieved independence. Many spectacular events have unfolded on this very day over the years. On June 25, 1932, India became the sixth team to be granted Test cricket status when it played its first match at Lord's on that historic day. Close to midnight of June 25, 1975, the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed proclaimed national Emergency citing 'internal disturbance'. It was to mark a watershed event as India's political landscape underwent a dramatic transformation and gave a new democratic dimension. On June 25, 1983, India rewrote cricketing history by emerging as world champions, when Kapil's Devils upset all calculations and put an end to the hat-trick quest of West Indies by winning the ODI World Cup in a stunning manner. Now 42 years to the day, June 25, 2025, to be precise, an Indian with the tricolour on his shoulders has put the country's name in a league of extraordinary achievers. A distinguished IAF pilot and astronaut, Lucknow's 39-year-old Shubhanshu Shukla scripted history by embarking on a space odyssey along with three others on Wednesday as part of an ISRO-NASA supported commercial spaceflight by Axiom Space that blasted off for a 14-day sojourn to the International Space Station (ISS) from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida. Incidentally, Shukla is one of four astronauts picked for ISRO's historic Gaganyaan mission, which marks India's inaugural human space flight endeavour. The lift-off at 12.01 pm on Wednesday (after several eleventh hour heart-breaking postponements) took the clock back by 41 years when Hyderabad's very own Rakesh Sharma became India's first man in space. He spent eight days in orbit as part of the then Soviet Union's Salyut-7 space station in 1984. A day after the take-off, Shukla went a notch higher than Sharma when he achieved the distinction of being the first Indian astronaut to have travelled to ISS. Along with three other astronauts, he reached the ISS when the Dragon spacecraft, named Grace, docked with the orbital laboratory at 4:01 pm (IST) on Thursday over the North Atlantic Ocean, marking the climax of a 28 hours flight. Incidentally, Axiom 4 mission heralds the return to space not just for India, but Poland and Hungary as well. Also onboard is the mission commander Peggy Whitson, and mission specialists Poland's Slawosz Uznanski-Wisniewski and Hungary's Tibor Kapu. If Shukla stirred the emotions of the countrymen with 'Sare Jahan se Achhcha…' while speaking to Indira Gandhi, Shukla's first message from space was equally patriotic. 'The Tiranga embossed on my shoulders tells me that I am with all of you. This journey of mine is not a beginning to the ISS but to India's Human Space Programme. I want all of you to be part of this journey. Your chest, too, should swell with pride... Jai Hind! Jai Bharat!' The October 10, 1985-born history-maker was commissioned into the IAF fighter wing in June 2006. He has an excellent track-record as a combat leader and seasoned test pilot having a mindboggling 2,000 hours of flight experience across aircraft like the Su-30 MKI, MiG-21, MiG-29, Jaguar, Hawk, Dornier and An-32. It is time Indians took a break from wars and conflicts and celebrated the glorious achievements of Shukla, Sharma and Sunita Williams, who set new benchmarks in spacewalk, which redefined 'resilience' during her nine-month stay aboard the ISS. Bravo, India's torchbearers of the extraordinary kind.
