Opinion Emergency sought to reduce judiciary to a cog in Congress’s machinery

On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India. The political instability, economic hardships, outright violation of fundamental rights and social unrest that characterised the period from 1975 to 1977 have been thoroughly chronicled. The genesis of the Emergency can be traced back to Raebareli in Uttar Pradesh, where Raj Narain, a socialist leader of the time, lost in the 1971 national elections. Narain filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices and accusing Mrs Gandhi, who was already Prime Minister, of using government machinery (including vehicles and personnel) to run her election campaign. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the High Court of Allahabad found Gandhi to be guilty under several provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Most damagingly, he barred her from contesting elections for a period of six years.

The PM swiftly moved an appeal in the Supreme Court, which granted a partial stay on the High Court order. Pertinently, Narain had also approached the Supreme Court seeking the production of a document called the “Blue Book” that contained security guidelines for the protection of the Prime Minister while travelling. He had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to produce the document in order to show Mrs Gandhi’s misuse of public funds, a request that was denied stating that to do so would be against public interest. The Supreme Court sided with the High Court and called for its disclosure, also laying down the foundations for the fundamental right to information.

Soon after, the President of India was compelled to misuse Article 352 of the Constitution and proclaim a state of emergency in the country citing “internal disturbances”. What followed was a barrage of ordinances. The Constitution was also amended. The 42nd amendment restricted fundamental rights, expanded the one-time duration of President’s Rule from six months to one year, amended the Preamble to include “socialist” and “secular” and redefined India’s constitutional structure, amongst other actions. These amendments sought to create avenues to retain power and subjugate all due process. Those who criticised the suspension of civil liberties and mutilation of the Constitution were arrested en masse, with dozens of political leaders (including present-day politicians and ministers) also jailed and stripped of their rights. Naturally, India’s values and freedoms, whether of the people, press or judiciary, gradually corroded.

The bleakest example of this institutional breakdown remains the Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla wherein the Court was tasked with deciding whether individuals could seek the judicial remedy of habeas corpus to challenge detentions during the Emergency when Article 21 of the Constitution was suspended. A 4:1 majority of the Court was pressured to abide by the government’s narrative, holding that certain fundamental rights, including the right to life and liberty, could not be enforced during the Emergency.

Having brazenly consolidated such unprecedented power, the government continued on its path to obliterate protocol. Justice H R Khanna was denied his rightful ascension to Chief Justice as punishment for his lone dissent in ADM Jabalpur. The government installed the pliant Justice A N Ray to the senior-most post instead. As it trampled over judicial independence, Congress sought to reduce the country’s highest court to a cog in its political machinery. This period saw the starkest example of judicial servility. Consequently, the period of the Emergency continues to serve as an unequalled reminder about how Congress methodically strangled India’s institutions.

In stark contrast, PM Narendra Modi’s 11-year track record represents a defence of and support for judicial independence. Where Congress, led by Mrs Gandhi, sought to systematically weaken India’s courts, PM Modi has allowed room for judicial independence, empowerment and modernisation. This is evidenced from scores of Supreme Court decisions against the government, often on issues of consequence and contention, such as electoral finance and administrative and legislative scrutiny. Crucially, the present government’s response to adverse verdicts is not interference with or dilution of the judicial process or manipulation of the Constitution’s identity — it is democratic acceptance. This signals that the government is secure in its legitimacy and mandate, and not compelled to subvert, coerce or retaliate against the judiciary or admonish its officers. Any disagreement has been expressed only within constitutional bounds. While Congress aimed to consolidate and centralise power by undermining judicial authority, the government led by PM Modi has fostered a climate of autonomy, where judges operate without fear of retribution.

PM Modi’s leadership has thus set a new yardstick of constitutional temperament, showcasing an innate respect for the judiciary and maintaining constitutional propriety. It is a sustained affirmation of judicial independence. Today, the judiciary stands tall, reprimanding, questioning and delivering decisions with freedom. It is no longer an extension of executive will and is an independent steadfast pillar of democracy. It is essential to ensure that we remain vigilant against genuine threats to India’s democracy. It is only when history is correctly understood and remembered that we will be able to protect our institutions and uphold their integrity.

The writer is full-time member, Law Commission of India and vice president, Mumbai BJP