Author: CHARU SETH, BHARATI VIDYAPEETH NEW LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
Abstract
The period of Emergency in India, 1975-1977, is among the most contentious and transformational events in the constitutional and political history of India. The Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi under Article 352 of the Constitution. Thus, declaring a national emergency that could be invoked in cases of “war, external aggression or armed rebellion” resulted in the suspension of fundamental rights, censorship of the press, widespread detention of political opponents, and concentration of power that was unprecedented. While the government insisted that it was necessary to resolve internal disturbances, safeguard national security, and administer socio-economic reform during this time, commentators have termed the Emergency as a time of dictatorship and constitutional subversion. This article provides an extensive assessment of the causes, legal basis, and constitutional and political context of the Emergency alongside its human rights consequences and implications for constitutional jurisprudence. This article will also analyze important constitutional decisions, including ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, as the evolving role of the judiciary serves as an important example to illustrate the changing complexities of the judicial role during the Emergency Besides, the post-Emergency revisions, particularly the 44th Amendment, will be evaluated since they are a mirror of the aspirations of India to recover an adaptable structure that would shield democratic institutions from future executive corruption.
Introduction
The Emergency in India, which was from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, is counted as one of the most terrible and at the same time the most educative events in the democratic history of India. Civil rights were suppressed for more than 21 months, political opposition was eliminated, and the executive was the sole power in the state. Now, although the Indian Constitution has emergency provisions, which many would say it borrowed from Weimar Germany, 1975 should raise a lot of questions regarding constitutional morality, democratic traditions, and the strength of legal institutions. To grasp it properly, the Emergency should be placed in the context of the political environment that led to it, the way the constitutional provisions were applied, the judiciary’s role and the reforms that may have been put in place to prevent the emergence of another similar situation.
Historical Background and Causes of the Emergency
The proclaims the Emergency were prompted by several factors:
1. Political turmoil and economic hardship,
2. The early 1970s were marked by the following characteristics:
rapid inflation, high levels of unemployment, food shortages, strikes by labor, students upraising in Gujarat (Nav Nirman) and Bihar (JP Movement) etc. One of the prominent freedom fighters, Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), was advocating for a mass anti-corruption campaign and called for a “total revolution.” The extent of the mobilization drastically endangered the stability of Indira Gandhi’s regime and contributed to the overall disorder in the country.
3. The Allahabad High Court ruling:
The Allahabad High Court verdict in Raj Narain v. Indira
Internal party differences:
Congress was internally shaky, with leaders like Jagjivan Ram and others publicly critical of Gandhi’s leadership. A strong coalition of opposition was emerging, which created calls for a culture of resignation.
The immediate impulse:
The government enacted an emergency declaration based on “internal disturbances” under Article 352. Opponents of Indira argue that the government and Indira were looking for any legal device – including common political uses and uses of the public order issues by clearly stating that it was a political use of the phrase – intro maintain authority after the decision of the judiciary.
Major Features of the Emergency
Suspension of Civil Liberties Thousands of political activists, journalists, trade unionists, and students were arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). Preventive detention became a potent weapon deployed against political opponents.
Media Censorship The media faced censorship enforced through compulsory prior censorship orders. Newspapers like The Indian Express and The Statesman strongly protested, leaving editorial pages blank in protest.
Constitutional Amendments The 42nd Amendment (1976), also known as the “Mini-Constitution,” radically was approved both greatly strengthened the central government, limited judicial review and extended the power of Parliament to amend legislation.
Forced Sterilization and Social Program The sterilization campaign, which was controversial, was vigorously enforced at the behest of Sanjay Gandhi, led to serious human rights violations, especially against the poor.
Control Over the Judiciary The selection or superseding of judges and the reassignment of High Court judges reflected the executive power of interference. The result was a climate of judicial subservience, reaching a peak during the ADM Jabalpur decision.
Constitutional Framework for Emergency
Article 352: National Emergency
Before the 44th Amendment, a National Emergency could be declared on the following grounds: war, external aggression, internal disturbance-a broad and ambiguous term.
Exercising the option under “internal disturbance,” the 1975 Emergency was declared, enabling the central government to acquire wide-ranging powers.
Suspension of Fundamental Rights
Under Articles 358 and 359: Article 19 rights were automatically suspended other rights could be suspended by Presidential order.
During the Emergency, habeas corpus petitions-an essential shield against unlawful detention-were widely denied.
Impact on Federal Structure
Once an Emergency is proclaimed: executive power of states becomes subordinate to the Union, Parliament can legislate on State List subjects, the duration of legislatures can be extended.
Key Issues
It was a matter of debate whether or not habeas corpus was applicable during the period of Emergency when the fundamental rights under Article 21 were suspended.
Judgment
The Supreme Court decided in favor of the majority consisting of 4 against 1: During the Emergency, there was no way for the citizens to legally challenge the unlawful detention, The State could give and take the right to life itself.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent maintained that the right to life is innate and not granted by the Constitution. He claimed that even the British during the colonial times did not assert such total power.
Significance
This decision was a blow to the Judiciary’s reputation, but it still left a legacy that was later to inspire reforms empowering the fundamental rights and also the judiciary.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case was about the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment that put the Prime Minister’s election beyond the reach of the courts.
Judgment
The Supreme Court invalidated the amendment and held: Free and fair elections form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution Judicial review cannot be taken away in election disputes. This case thus reiterated the basic structure doctrine and placed limits on Parliament’s amending powers with respect to the Constitution.
Additional Relevant Cases
Shukla v. Delhi Administration
The case has again strengthened the wide preventive detention powers of the government.
(b) Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)
This case was not only pre-Emergency but also shaped press rights and exposed the clash between state control and freedom of speech.
(c) People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
In the post-Emergency period, it confirmed the wider scope of Article 21 and signaled a revival of the judicial activist role.
Constitutional Amendments
The 42nd Amendment (1976), colloquially referred to as the “Mini-Constitution,” made significant changes: concentrated power in the federal government, limited the powers of the judiciary further, and increased the amendment powers of Parliament.
Forced Sterilization and Social Programs;
The sterilization program, which was most vigorously carried out as a result of Sanjay Gandhi’s influence, was very controversial, and the poor were the most affected group in the human rights abuses.
Control Over the Judiciary;
The cancellation of judges’ appointments and the assignment of judges from one High Court to another showed the extent of government meddling in the judiciary. A situation of judicial acquiescence was created, which eventually led to the ADM Jabalpur judgement.
Criticisms of the Emergency
Violation of Democratic Norms;
The dictatorship nature of it all was characterized by undermining the separation of powers and the federal structure of the country.
Human Rights Abuses;
The whole system reflected abuses like arbitrary detentions, forced sterilizations, and censorship.
Manipulation of Constitutional Machinery;
Emergency regulations were applied for prolonging political existence instead of serving the country.
Long-Term Impacts of the Emergency
Political Culture
The Emergency era not only marked Indian democracy with a scar but also caused the subjugated people to be more conscious of their rights and, in that way, it became an indicator of the power concentration issue.
Strengthening of Civil Liberties
People’s rights were protected more actively than ever, especially due to the efficiency and outspokenness of the activists and the social movements.
Judicial Transformation
The courts during the Emergency period were self-examining and when they finally came out to be more activist-oriented, it was post-Emergency. Some of the significant developments that occurred were;
Public Interest Litigation (PIL),
Widening interpretation of Article 21, More judicial monitoring of executive actions,
have partly ebbed from the judicial learning during the Emergency.
Media Vigilance
The media became more progressive and aware of its function as a watchdog.
Conclusion
The 1975–1977 Emergency period is a very dark chapter in the history of constitutional democracy in India, as it showed that such a system is not only based on laws but also on the moral values, restraint, and accountability of power holders. While the Constitution came out unscathed from its toughest test, the ordeal created some necessary protections for people’s basic rights and the independence of institutions. The study of the time is still very relevant today because it shows how democratic setups can be undermined from within and how people have to be wide awake to keep freedom and the rule of law.
FAQs on Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution
1. What are the types of emergencies provided in the Indian Constitution?
The Constitution categorizes emergencies into three types:
National Emergency – Article 352
State Emergency (also known as President’s Rule) – Article 356
Financial Emergency – Article 360
2. Who has the authority to declare an Emergency?
Under the written advice of the Union Cabinet, the President of India is empowered to declare an Emergency.
3. What are the conditions for declaring a National Emergency (Article 352)?
National Emergency can be declared when there is a threat because of:
War
External aggression
Armed rebellion (previously termed as internal disturbance)
4. What are the consequences of a National Emergency for Fundamental Rights?
Article 19 is suspended ex-automatically (apart from war/external aggression).
Rights conferred by Articles 20 and 21 are never suspended even in a declared emergency.
5. What is the significance of President’s Rule (Article 356)?
President’s Rule comes into play when:
The state government’s operation is not in harmony with the Constitution, or
The state does not accept Union directives.
6. President’s Rule can stay for how long?
It is at first for 6 months.
Then it can be allowed for up to 3 years, with parliamentary consent every 6 months and in special circumstances.
7. Has Financial Emergency been declared in India at any point in time?
India has not declared Financial Emergency under Article 360 ever.
8. What are the implications of a Financial Emergency?
The Union Government may:
Instruct states to lower the pay of government employees and judges.
Regulate the financial policies of the states.
