© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Fifty years after the Allahabad High Court on June 12, 1975 declared as void the 1971 election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — a judgment that set off a chain of events that led to the imposition of a national Emergency on June 25, 1975 — the ruling and what followed serve as a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the collective responsibility to guard against abuse of power.
After losing to Indira Gandhi from Rae Bareli in the 1971 Lok Sabha polls, Raj Narain, a candidate of the Samyukta Socialist Party, had moved the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices by the then Prime Minister.
Nearly four years after the election, the Allahabad High Court held Mrs Gandhi guilty on two counts. First, that she used a gazetted officer, her personal secretary Yashpal Kapoor, as her election agent, and two, that she had taken the support of state government officers — from the district magistrate to officials in the Public Works Department and the power department — to have rostrums constructed and supply power to loudspeakers that were installed for her election speeches.
On the other alleged malpractices — from using choppers of the Indian Air Force to travel to Rae Bareli to deliver her election speeches and file nominations, to invoking religion to prompt voters to vote for the Congress Party — the court ruled in Gandhi’s favour. However, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha’s final 258-page ruling would mean an immediate disqualification for Indira Gandhi and dismissal as Prime Minister.
As Prime Minister Gandhi conflated her defeat in the case with a threat against the nation, she imposed a national Emergency on June 25, 1975, that sent India’s democracy into a tailspin for the next few years. For 21 months between June 1975 and January 1977, all constitutional guarantees were subverted — from suspension of civil rights by jailing political opponents without trial to censoring of the press, postponing elections and ruling by executive decree without consulting Parliament.
While delivering the verdict, Justice Sinha had granted a 20-day stay on the verdict after the PM’s lawyers made a case that there would be an imminent political vacuum in the country. In the 20 days, the Congress was to elect a new leader. However, the Congress Working Committee instead once again elected Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister, in a show of strength and public support in her favour.
In the meantime, she moved the Supreme Court on appeal. With the court on vacation, the crucial case was heard by a single-judge vacation bench of Justice V R Krishna Iyer.
In the Supreme Court, her lawyer Nani Palkhivala dismissed the findings of the High Court as mere “technicalities” that would not stand the scrutiny of the court in appeal.
Former Union Law Minister and veteran lawyer Shanti Bhushan, who appeared against Indira Gandhi in court, had said before the Supreme Court that “no republic can surrender its democratic destiny to a single soul without being guilty of overpowering the parliamentary process by a personality cult.”
On June 24, 1975, after hearing arguments for an entire day, the court granted a “conditional stay” against the HC ruling. The condition was that while Indira Gandhi could not vote in Parliament, take part in proceedings of the House, or draw a salary as an MP, she could continue as Prime Minister till the SC finally decides the appeal.
For all the “political dust storm” it kicked up, the Supreme Court would go on to describe the Allahabad High Court ruling of June 12, 1975, as a “humdrum case”.
Ultimately, in November 1975, during the Emergency, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court verdict. Just three months earlier, in August 1975, Parliament had also brought in the 39th Constitutional amendment to put the election of the Prime Minister and President beyond the purview of judicial review. While a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the amendments, holding that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it reversed the High Court ruling.
However, the aftermath of the HC verdict had irreversibly changed the judiciary’s engagement with the executive. The imposition of Emergency brought in a hardline stance against dissent, not just in political circles but also in judicial review.
Judges who ruled against the Gandhi-led government policies during the Emergency or even upheld fundamental rights were sidelined and superseded in favour of those who toed the line.
For the first time ever, the government in 1973 tinkered with the seniority norm in choosing the Chief Justice of India and appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI. Again in 1977, Justice M H Beg was appointed CJI, overlooking Justice H R Khanna, who was first in seniority. Justice Ray was the lone dissenter in the 11-judge bench ruling of 1969 that struck down nationalisation of banks, a crucial socialist policy of the Indira Gandhi government. He also wrote a dissent in the 1973 Kesavananda ruling that laid down the basic structure doctrine. In 1977, as CJI, he upheld the suspension of civil liberties in the landmark case popularly known as the habeas corpus case. Justice H R Khanna, on the other hand, was the lone dissenter in the habeas corpus case and criticised the government for bypassing rule of law and fundamental rights.
The effect of the supersession of judges in those days continues to play out in how the judiciary guards its independence by calling the shots in the appointment of judges. The SC took over appointments, developing the collegium system from the government and, in 2015, struck down a constitutional amendment that gave the government a say in appointing judges.
Eventually, with Emergency lifted, elections were finally held in 1977 and Indira Gandhi was voted out of power. It ended the chain of events that the June 12 verdict started but the ruling still stands vigil against the subversion of due process by elected representatives and public officials such as the Prime Minister.
