L Is Great

SOCIO ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 1975 EMERGENCY
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

A final draft for fulfilment of project of Sociology of law
On
“SOCIO ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 1975 EMERGENCY”
Submitted to:-Mr. Sangeet Kumar
By: Keshav sharma
Assistant Professor of Sociology of law
Roll No: 2022
1st Year BB.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)
1
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE
I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the BBA .L.L.B(Hons) Project Report titled
“Socio economic effects of 1975 emergency” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of my work carried under the supervision of Mr.
Sangget kumar. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am
fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.
(Signature of the Candidate)
KESHAV SHARMA
BBA. L.L.B (Hons) 1st YEAR
SEMESTER-2nd
CNLU, PATNA
Dated:
2
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to show my gratitude towards my guide Mr. Sangeet kumar, Assistant professor of
Sociology of law, under whose guidance, I structured my project.
I owe the present accomplishment of my project to our CNLU librarians, who helped me
immensely with the materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed
it in the present way.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my friends and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.
THANK YOU,
KESHAV SHARMA
SEMESTER 2nd
CNLU,Patna
3
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. ……………..6 -7
2.CONSIDERATION………… …………………………………….…………………………….......8-15
3. PROMISE DUE TO AFFECTION…………………………………..15-17
4. PAST VOLUNTARY SERVICES…......................................................................................17-18
5. TIME BARRED DEBT. ……………………………………………………………..18-23
6. CONCLUSION AND ……………………………………………………………...24
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………….........................................................25
4
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
A state of emergency in India refers to a period of governance under an

altered constitutional setup that can be proclaimed by the President of India, when he/she perceives
grave threats to the nation from internal and external sources or from financial situations of crisis.
Under the advice of the cabinet of ministers and using the powers vested in him/her largely by Part
XVIII of the Constitution of India, the President can overrule many provisions of the constitution,
which guarantee fundamental rights to the citizens of India and acts governing devolution of powers
to the states which form the federation. In the history of independent India, a state of emergency has
been declared thrice.
The first instance was between 26 October 1962 to 10 January 1968 during the India-China war,
when "the security of India" was declared as being "threatened by external aggression" The second
instance was between 3 December 1971 to 21 March 1977, which was originally proclaimed during
the Indo-Pakistan war. It was later extended along with the third proclamation between 25 June 1975
to 21 March 1977 under controversial circumstances of political instability under Indir Gandhi's prime
ministership, when "the security of India" was declared as being "threatened by external
aggression". The phrase Emergency period used loosely, when referring to the political history of
India, often refers to the third and the most controversial of the three occasions.
The President can declare three types of emergencies — national, state and financial emergency.1
National emergency under Article 352

National emergency can be declared on the basis of external aggression or armed rebellion in the
whole of India or a part of its territory under Article 352. Such an emergency was declared in India in
1962 (China war), 1971 (Pakistan war), and 1975 (declared by Indira Gandhi). The President can
declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written request by the Cabinet headed by
the Prime Minister. Such a proclamation must be laid before both houses of Parliament, and the
state of emergency expires after one month unless approved within that time by both houses sitting
and voting separately. However, if the Lok Sabha (the lower house) has been dissolved or
dissolution takes place in the state of emergency, and the Rajya Sabha approves of the state of
emergency, the deadline for the Lok Sabha is extended until thirty days after that house
reconstituted. According to Article 352(6) approval by either house requires a special majority: those
in favour of the motion must be two thirds of those present and voting, and amount to a majority of
the entire membership of that house. A Parliamentary resolution extends the state of emergency for
up to six months, and it can be extended indefinitely by further resolutions in six-monthly increments.
1
https://www.legistify.com/qna/.../2239-types-of-emergencies-under-indian-constitutio...[ 07:45pm 20/03/19]
5
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
During a national emergency, many Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens can be suspended. The
six freedoms under Right to Freedom are automatically suspended. By contrast, the Right to Life
and Personal Liberty cannot be suspended according to the original Constitution. In January 1977,
during the emergency declared controversially by Indira Gandhi, the government decided to suspend
even the Right to Life and Personal Liberty by dispensing with Habeas corpus. Justice Hans Ra
Khanna defended the Right to Life and asked: "Life is also mentioned in Article 21 and would
Government argument extend to it also?" The Attorney General observed: "Even if life was taken
away illegally, courts are helpless"
A national emergency modifies the federal system of government to a unitary one by granting
Parliament the power to make laws on the 66 subjects of the State List (which contains subjects on
which the state governments can make laws). Also, all state money bills are referred to the
Parliament for its approval.
During an emergency, the term of the Lok Sabha can be successively extended by intervals of up to
one year, but not beyond six months after the state of emergency has been revoked.2
State emergency under Article 356

A state of emergency can be declared in any state of India (except Jammu and Kashmir) under
article 356 on the recommendation of the governor of the state. Every state in India except two
states, Chhattisgarh and Telangana has been under a state of emergency at some point of time or
the other. The state of emergency is commonly known as 'President's Rule.
If the President is satisfied, based on the report of the Governor of the concerned state or from other
sources, that the governance in a state cannot be carried out according to the provisions in the
Constitution, he may declare an emergency in the state. Such an emergency must be approved by
the Parliament within a period of two months.
It is imposed for an initial period of six months and can last for a maximum period of three years with
repeated parliamentary approval every six months. The 42nd amendment act of 1976 extended the
initial time duration of state emergency from 6 months to 1 year. Subsequently, 44th CAA 1978
restored the 1-year period back to 6 months. Originally, the maximum period of operation of state
emergency was 3 years. This 3-year period was divided into 1 year of ordinary period and 2 years of
extra ordinary period for which certain conditions are to be fulfilled. Therefore, from now on after
every 1 year Parliament needs to approve the same. If the emergency has to be extended for more
than three years, it can only be done by a constitutional amendment, as has happened
in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.
During such an emergency, the President can take over the entire work of the executive, and the
Governor administers the state in the name of the President. The Legislative Assembly can be
dissolved or may remain in suspended animation. The Parliament makes laws on the 66 subjects of
the state list (see National emergency for explanation). All money bills have to be referred to the
Parliament for approval. In this occasion ministers of state legislature do not perform actions in
state3.
2
www.legalservicesindia.com/.../Three-types-of-emergencies-under-the-Indian-Constit . [ 07:55 pm, 20/03/19]
3
https://factly.in/state-presidents-rule-number-times/[ 08:00 pm, 20/03/19]
6
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Financial emergency under Article 360

If the President is satisfied that there is an economic situation in which the financial stability or credit
of India is threatened, he or she can declare financial emergency. Such an emergency must be
approved by the Parliament within two months. It has never been declared. Such a situation had
arisen but was avoided by putting the gold assets of India as collateral for foreign credit.
In case of a financial emergency, the President can reduce the salaries of all government officials,
including judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. All money bills passed by the State
legislatures are submitted to the President for his approval. He can direct the state to observe
certain principles (economy measures) relating to financial matters; but fundamental rights cannot be
suspended.4
4
www.advocatekhoj.com/.../constitutionofindia/360.php?...Constitution%20of%20Indi[ 0830 pm 20/03/19]
7
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Method of Research
The researcher has adopted both a doctrinal and non- doctrinal method of research. The
researcher has made extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and
also the internet sources.
Sources of Data:
The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.
1. Primary Sources: Reports by reputed organisations.
2. Secondary Sources: Newspapers, journals, books, cases and websites.
Method of Writing
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.
Hypothesis
The researcher tends to hypothesize that emergency of 1975 is a major thing to know and have
brought many changes in the Indian political system and indian democracy and the socio
economic changes that were thrusted upon the natives of India.
8
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Aims and Objectives
1) The researcher tends to understand the concept of emergency.
2) To understand the changes brought by emergency.
3) To contemplate whether the emergency was justified or not
9
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
DESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO EMERGENCY
Never in the history of independent India have we faced such a constitutional crisis as during the
21 month period in 1975-1977, when a state of emergency was declared across the country. It was
officially issued by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on the recommendation of Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi. It was done under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution because of ‘internal
disturbance’. The Emergency, as the period is commonly known in India, lasted from 25 June 1975
until its withdrawal on 21 March 1977.
Years preceding the emergency
The social and economic condition of the country was in bad shape during 1972-1975. Although
the win over Pakistan in the war brought much praise for Indira Gandhi from the common man,
the war and the eight million refugees from Bangladesh had put a heavy strain on our economy.
After the war the U.S government stopped all aid to India and the oil prices also increased
manifold in the international market. This led to a general increase in prices of commodities
(23% in 1973 and 30% in 1974). Such a persistently high level of inflation was causing great
distress to the people. Moreover, industrial growth was low and unemployment was high. The
government’s move to freeze the salaries of its employees to reduce its spending further led to
resentment amongst the government employees. Monsoons failed in 1972-1973, resulting in the
food grain output declining by 8%. There was a general atmosphere of dissatisfaction with the
prevailing economic situation all over the country.5
Protests in Northern India
The protests in Gujarat and Bihar, led by students, played a pivotal role in galvanising a
nationwide opinion against Congress and the Prime Minister. In January 1974 students in Gujarat
started protesting against rising prices of food grains and other essential commodities and
corruption in the state government. The protests became widespread with major opposition
parties (including Moraji Desai, a prominent political leader and a rival of Indira Gandhi when
5
https://indianexpress.com › Research [0900 pm 20/03/19[
10
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
he was in the Congress) joining it, leading to the imposition of President’s rule in the state.
Demands for fresh elections became intense. Subsequently, elections were held in Gujarat in
June 1975, which the Congress lost.
Students in Bihar came together in march 1974 to protest against rising prices, food scarcity,
unemployment and corruption. As the movement gained strength, they invited Jayaprakash
Narayan (JP), who had given up active politics and was involved in social work, to lead it. He
accepted it and took the movement to the national level.
Jayaprakash Narayan demanded the dismissal of the Congress government in Bihar and gave a
call for total revolution in the social, economic and political spheres of the society. The movement
gained momentum with a series of strikes and protests. The government, however, refused to
resign.
Jayaprakash led a massive political rally in Delhi’s Ramlila grounds on 25 June 1975, where he
announced a nationwide Satyagraha for Indira Gandhi’s resignation and asked the army, police
and government employees not to obey ‘illegal and immoral orders’. The government perceived
this as an incitement and felt that it would bring all government machinery to a standstill.
Alongside the agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan, the employees of the Railways gave a call
for a nationwide strike, led by George Fernandez.6
Disqualification of Indira Gandhi as an MP

In the 1971 Parliamentary elections, Indira Gandhi defeated Raj Narain from the Rae Bareli
constituency. Subsequently, Raj Narain filed a petition In the Allahabad High Court accusing
Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices, bribing voters and misuse of government machinery.
6
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/.../70-years-in-Indian-politics-and-policy.html[ 0900 pm 20/03/19]
11
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Indira Gandhi was also cross-examined in the High Court which was the first such instance for
an Indian Prime Minister. On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found the prime minister
guilty of misuse of government machinery during her election campaign and declared her
election null and void and also barred her from contesting any election for the next six years. The
court, however, gave the Congress twenty days to make arrangements to replace Indira as the
PM. A leading newspaper described it as ‘firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket’.
Indira Gandhi challenged this verdict in the Supreme Court. On June 24, the Supreme Court
granted her a partial stay on the High Court order – till her appeal was decided, she could remain
an MP but could not take part in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha.7
Proclamation of Emergency
The government responded to the massive strike on June 25, 1975 by declaring a state of
emergency that night itself, saying that there was a threat of internal disturbances and that a
grave crisis had arisen which made the proclamation necessary. PM Indira Gandhi recommended
to the President to proclaim a state of emergency, and he did so immediately. After midnight, the
electricity to all the major newspaper offices was disconnected, and was restored only two to
three days later after the censorship apparatus had been set up. Early morning, on 26, a large
number of opposition leaders and workers were arrested. The Union Cabinet was only informed
about it at a special meeting at 6 a.m, after all this was over.8
Political and civic unrest

During 1973–75, political unrest against the Indira Gandhi government increased across the country. This led
some Congress party leaders to demand a move towards a presidential system emergency declaration with a
more powerful directly elected executive. The most significant of the initial such movement was the Nav
Nirman movement in Gujarat, between December 1973 and March 1974. Student unrest against the state's
education minister ultimately forced the central government to dissolve the state legislature, leading to the
resignation of the chief minister, Chimanbhai Patel, and the imposition of President's rule. After the re-elections
in June 1977, Gandhi's party was defeated by the Janata alliance, formed by parties opposed to the ruling
7
https://www.hindustantimes.com/...indira-gandhi...emergency/story-uaDsy0j3B0vSdiP. [0925 pm 20/03/19]
8
www.advocatekhoj.com/library/.../352.php?...Proclamation%20of%20Emergency [09:37 pm 20/03/19}
12
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Congress party. Meanwhile there were assassination attempts on public leaders as well as the assassination of
the railway minister L. N.Mishra by a bomb. All of these indicated a growing law and order problem in the entire
country, which Mrs. Gandhi's advisors warned her of for months.
In March–April 1974, a student agitation by the Bihar Chatra Sangharsh Samiti received the support
of Gandhian socialist Jayaprakash Narayan, referred to as JP, against the Bihar government. In April 1974, in
Patna, JP called for "total revolution," asking students, peasants, and labour unions to non-violently transform
Indian society. He also demanded the dissolution of the state government, but this was not accepted by Centre.
A month later, the railway-employees union, the largest union in the country, went on a nationwide railways
strike. This strike was brutally suppressed by the Indira Gandhi government, which arrested thousands of
employees and drove their families out of their quarters
Raj Narain verdict

Raj Narain, who had been defeated in the 1971 parliamentary election by Indira Gandhi, lodged
cases of election fraud and use of state machinery for election purposes against her in
the Allahabad High Court. Shanti Bhushan fought the case for Narain. Indira Gandhi was also
cross-examined in the High Court which was the first such instance for an Indian Prime Minister.
On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found the prime
minister guilty on the charge of misuse of government machinery for her election campaign. The
court declared her election null and void and unseated her from her seat in the Lok Sabha. The
court also banned her from contesting any election for an additional six years. Serious charges
such as bribing voters and election malpractices were dropped and she was held responsible for
misusing government machinery, and found guilty on charges such as using the state police to
build a dais, availing herself of the services of a government officer, Yashpal Kapoor, during the
elections before he had resigned from his position, and use of electricity from the state electricity
department.
Because the court unseated her on comparatively frivolous charges, while she was acquitted on
more serious charges, The Times described it as "firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket".
13
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
]
Her supporters organized mass pro-Indira demonstrations in the streets of Delhi close to the
Prime Minister's residence.The persistent efforts of Narain were praised worldwide as it took
over four years for Justice Sinha to pass judgement against the prime minister.9
Indira Gandhi challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court. Justice V. R. Krishna
Iyer, on 24 June 1975, upheld the High Court judgement and ordered all privileges Gandhi
received as an MP be stopped, and that she be debarred from voting. However, she was allowed
to continue as Prime Minister pending the resolution of her appeal. JP Narayan and Morarji
Desai called for daily anti-government protests. The next day, JP organised a large rally in Delhi,
where he said that a police officer must reject the orders of government if the order is immoral
and unethical as this was Mahatma Gandhi's motto during the freedom struggle. Such a statement
was taken as a sign of inciting rebellion in the country. Later that day, Indira Gandhi requested a
compliant President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to issue a proclamation of a state of emergency.
Within three hours, the electricity to all major newspapers was cut and the political opposition
arrested. The proposal was sent without discussion with the Union Cabinet, who only learnt of it
and ratified it the next morning.10
9
https://lawtimesjournal.in › Case Summary[ 0950 20/03/19]
10
https://lawtimesjournal.in › Case Summary[ 0950 20/03/19]
14
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DURING 1975 EMERGENCY

The years 1971 and 1972 were high points in the political career of Smt. Indira Gandhi. She challenged
the senior leaders of her own party and a grand alliance of opposition party. She won convincingly the
1971 General Elections. She was the key centre of political power for the next five years. There was no
challenge to her within her own party. The year 1971 also witnessed a civil revolt in East Pakistan where
in a General Election the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had won a clear majority in the
Pakistan Parliament. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s party had lesser number of seats than the Awami League.
How could Pakistan allow its Government to be dominated by East Pakistan? It refused to accept the
mandate leading to revolt in East Pakistan. It snowballed into a major crisis with the Mukti Bahini battling
the Pakistani army. Ultimately a war with India started on 3rd December, 1971. By 16th December the
Indian forces had taken control of East Pakistan and made substantial headway in West Pakistan. The
Pakistani forces in East Pakistan surrendered to India and were taken as Prisoners of War. For India and
Mrs. Indira Gandhi the break-up of Pakistan was a major political development which led to the creation
of a new nation – Bangladesh.11
Mismanagement of the Economy, Slogans vs Policy
The stage was now set for Mrs. Indira Gandhi to rule India, deliver to it the promise of “Garibi Hatao”
and bring substantial economic growth in India. At this point her popularity was very high. During the
decades 60s and 70s, the average growth rate of GDP had only been 3.5%. Most countries in the world
were now trying to get out of a regulated economy which was proving to be counter-productive. Even
Communist nations were either on the brink of break up or rejecting state regulation. By keeping one
party rule intact, China decided to move ahead with the liberalized economy. The tragedy of Mrs. Indira
Gandhi politics was she preferred the popular slogans over sound and sustainable policies. The
11
15
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Government with a huge electoral mandate at the Centre and the States, continued in the same economic
directions which she had experimented in the late 1960’s. She believed that India’s slow growth was on
account of smuggling and economic offences. She enacted a Preventive Detention Law COFEPOSA to
deal with smuggling. She believed that confiscation of smugglers’ assets could bring to India a large
resource and hence SAFEMA was enacted. She believed that large enterprises with economies of scale
had to be stopped and MRTP Act was made more stringent. She believed that land regulations in terms
of size, ownership must also apply to urban areas and hence the Urban Land Ceiling Law was enacted.
This led to residential construction and apartments’ development not taking off as large chunks of urban
land got frozen. Only State development authorities were allowed to develop land. She believed that
outsourcing of business was harmful and the Contract Labour Abolition Act was brought in. She
nationalized insurance and coal mine business.
She botched up the nationalization of wheat trade (subsequently reversed) to tackle the unmanageable
inflation. It led to greater inflation. This led to social and trade union unrest where large number of man-
days were lost. The first oil shock had already had an adverse impact. Due to its tilt towards Pakistan, the
United States suspended a lot of aid to India. Inflation in 1974 touched a staggering 20.2 percent and
reached 25.2 percent in 1975. Labour laws were made more stringent and these led to a near economic
collapse. There was large scale unemployment and the unprecedented price rise. Investment in the
economy had taken a back seat. To make matters worse FERA was enacted. The Foreign Exchange
resources in 1975 and 1976 were a mere 1.3 billion dollars.
On 28th February 1974 Shri Y.B. Chavan, the Finance Minister presented the Budget in which he said
“as the House is aware the Government has been deeply concerned about the acute inflationary pressure
that has prevailed in the economy during the last two years, it is a matter of deep regret that despite these
measures, prices continue to rise, the steep fall of 9.5% in agricultural output in 1972-73 was bound to
upset the balance in demand and supply, the available indications suggest that there was hardly any
increase in the rate of growth of industrial production in 1972”.
In the Budget Speech of 1975-76, Finance Minister C. Subramaniam echoed similar words “inflation
has been spreading and its devastating impact across national boundaries continue to impose on
developing countries such as India burdens and hardships which we have been ill-equipped to
withstand. The impact on the living standard of our people and on the pattern of real incomes within the
country has been serious enough”.
The Loss of Political Goodwill
16
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
By 1973 it became apparent that the Government had no intention of changing a disastrous economy
path on which it had embarked. Its political strategy was instrumental in the Government losing the
sympathy of the intelligentsia. It was engaged in a battle with the Supreme Court in order to ensure that
the Golak Nath judgement was reversed. This effort failed as majority of Judges decided against the
Government in the Keshvanand Bharti case. The three senior judges of the Supreme Court Justice Shelat,
Justice Grover and Justice Hegde were superseded and Justice A.N. Ray was appointed Chief Justice of
India. The superseded judges resigned.
The court was now packed with Government preferred judges. A dangerous thesis was propagated by
Law Minister H.R. Gokhale and Steel and Mines Minister Mohan Kumaramangalam that judiciary must
follow the social philosophy of the Government and judges must be appointed on the basis of their social
philosophy.
The Press was not spared either. One way of controlling the media was to pinch the pocket of the media.
The Government therefore, passed an order putting restrictions on the number of advertisements that a
newspaper could carry. It was challenged before the Supreme Court by the leading newspapers.
Fortunately, the Constitution Bench by majority of four against one struck down the Government action.
Justice K.K. Mathew a pro-Government judge in the Keshavanand Bharti case was the dissenting judge
who favoured media restrictions.
Two Freak Events
There were two freak events which were parallelly occurring in 1973. On account of the unprecedented
price rise in the hostel mess charges of the L.D. Engineering College in Ahmedabad were increased. The
second event related to the maverick socialist leader Raj Narain who had lost the 1971 elections to Smt.
Indira Gandhi and had filed an election petition challenging the validity of her election before the
Allahabad High Court. Political observers had initially believed these events as one of the little
consequences to the Government and Mrs. Gandhi.
The low key agitation arising from the hostel price rise engulfed the whole city of Gujarat and it became
impossible for the Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel to manage the social unrest. It became an
unmanageable mass movement. The entire civil society was on the streets. The students of Gujarat led
the movement. The veteran leader Morarji Desai sat on a fast unto death, till assembly was dissolved and
fresh elections were held. The Government had to give in, leading to the dissolution of the state assembly
and holding of the fresh elections in June 1975.
17
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Developments in Gujarat triggered similar sentiments in other parts of the country. The immediate impact
was in Bihar where frustrated with corruption, unemployment and inflation, the Chhatra Sangharsh
Samiti launched a mass movement in the State. Shri J.P. Narayan (JP) who had retired from active public
life, jumped into the movement. He inspired the students not only in Bihar but all over the country to
organize similar protests. In 1974 as a President of the Delhi University Students’ Union, I convened
student leaders from all over the country for a two-day Coordination Committee meeting with JP. I
requested JP to address a mass rally on the University campus in Delhi which witnessed an
unprecedented turn out. JP toured several parts of India. Student organizations and political parties,
particularly the Jan Sangh, Congress (O) Swatantra Party, the socialists all joined the movement.
Gandhian and Sarvodaya leaders became active in the movement. The Akali Dal got out from the
gurudwara politics. Led by Sardar Prakash Singh Badal, it joined JP in a big way. So did the veterans
Biju Patnaik and Acharya Kriplani.
12th June 1975 turned out to be one of the most disappointing days for Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She had been
unable to manage the economy. She was increasingly seen as dictatorial and vindictive. The opposition
had joined ranks against her. The day began with the sad news of the demise of one of closest Advisers
Shri D.P. Dhar. By the afternoon the result of Gujarat Assembly election had come and the Congress
party lost Gujarat for the first time and Shri Morarji Desai’s blessed opposition alliance led by Shri
Babubhai Desai won an absolute majority. Then came the stunning news that Justice Jag Mohan Lal
Sinha of the Allahabad High Court had unseated Mrs. Indira Gandhi as a Member of Parliament and
declared her election as null and void. She was accused of spending more money on the elections than
permissible and having secured services of Yashpal Kapoor, a public servant, to further her election
process. She was held guilty of corrupt practices.
Are individuals indispensable in a Democracy?
By the evening of 12th June large demonstrations were organized outside the Prime Minister’s residence
that the judgement of Allahabad High Court should not be accepted. The rule of law was sought to be
replaced by a politically dangerous principle that Indira Gandhi was indispensable. A situation was
created for the party to rally behind her. An appeal to the Supreme Court was immediately prepared and
filed. She succeeded in getting Nani Palkhivala to appear for her. It was the month of June and the
Vacation Judge Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was to hear this appeal and the possible grant of interim order
against the High Court judgement. Before the hearing, the Law Minister Gokhale wanted to meet Justice
Krishna Iyer and discuss the case with him. The judge asked Gokhale the purpose of the meeting which
18
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Gokhale told him honestly. The judge politely declined the meeting. This was disclosed by the judge in
his memoirs. The Judge heard Palkhivala for Indira Gandhi and Shanti Bhushan for Raj Narain and
passed the usual order which is passed in election appeals. The appeal was admitted. Palkhivala’s request
for a stay on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court was rejected. Indira Gandhi could attend
Parliament but could not speak as a Member of Parliament. She could speak only as the Prime Minister.
The Supreme Court’s order intensified the demand for her resignation. On 24th June the opposition leader
met at the Gandhi Peace Foundation with JP. As the Convener of Youth and student organizations, I sat
in the back row observing the then national leaders chalking out the strategy. A nationwide satyagrah
was to be launched from the 29th of the June. The 25th June witnessed a big rally at Ramlila Maidan.
The pressure for resignation was building up.
The midnight of 25th June
Since the war with Pakistan in 1971 India was already in a declared stage of emergency under Article
352 of the Constitution. This emergency was on account of external aggression. There was no need to
declare a second Emergency. But it was Siddhartha Shankar Ray who advised her that the second
proclamation of emergency was required. It was necessary, he argued to proclaim emergency on account
of internal disturbances. Accordingly on the mid night of 25th and 26th June a fresh proclamation was
got signed by the President on a state of internal emergency. Simultaneously with the proclamation under
Article 352 another proclamation under Article 359 was issued suspending the fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Every Indian was now devoid of this fundamental right. It
was a phoney emergency on account of proclaimed policy that Indira Gandhi was indispensable to India
and all contrarian voices had to be crushed. The constitutional provisions were used to turn democracy
into a constitutional dictatorship.
The morning of 26th June
In the midnight of 25th and 26th June political leaders across the country were arrested by the police. All
those who were opposed to Mrs. Indira Gandhi were a special target. I was one of those whose house
was encircled by the police in the early hours of 26th morning. My father, a lawyer, asked for the
documents for my detention, which the police did not have. They took him to the police station and then
sent him back saying that I must report to the police. In the meanwhile, I escaped from my house and
spent the night with a friend in the neighborhood. On coming to know what was happening I started to
prepare for organizing a protest on the morning of 26th June.
19
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
In the early morning I was trying to find out what was happening in other parts of the country. Most of
the leaders had been arrested and were taken to Jail. The electricity connection at Bahadurshah Zafar
Marg – Delhi’s Press Street, was cut off to ensure that no newspapers were published. By 10 AM
censorship has been imposed on the newspapers and an official of the Censor was sitting in the office of
every newspaper. I led a protest of Delhi University Students where we burnt effigy of the Emergency
and I delivered a speech against what was happening. The police had arrived in large number. I got
arrested only to be served a detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. I was taken
to Delhi’s Tihar Jail for the purpose of detention. I thus got the privilege for organizing the only protest
on the morning of 26th June 1975 and became the first Satyagrahi against the Emergency. Little did I
realize that at a young age of 22 years, I was participating in events which were going to be a part of
history. For me this event changed the future course of my life. By late afternoon, I was lodged in Tihar
Jail as a MISA detenu.
When Gujarat movement came to an end in March 1974, Jai Prakash Narayan in Bihar
took the reins of another students' agitation and trained guns at Indira Gandhi, the then
prime minister. The two protesting streams of public anger met and threatened Indira
Gandhi's regime, which responded by imposing emergency on June 26, 1975.
But an analysis of the prevailing economic conditions suggests that Indira Gandhi might
have used the political agitations against her to escape the economic crisis that her
government had failed to manage.
Indira Gandhi had won the 1971 Lok Sabha elections against all odds - battling a split in
the Congress and a united Opposition - with her "garibi hatao" (eliminate poverty) slogan.
Poverty elimination required economic reforms, strengthening educational and training
institutions and rapid growth in agriculture and industrial sectors.
Lok Sabha elections were held in March, 1971 when Indira Gandhi raised expectations of
the people. By May 15, India was drawn into Bangladesh liberation war with Indira
government starting to aid Mukti Wahini. On August 16, Indian Army launched Operation
Jackpot - the Indian codename name for Bangladesh liberation war.
Officially, the cost of the 1971 war for Indira Gandhi's government was around 200 crore
a week. It was a huge cost given the scale of economies of the day. It impacted the GDP
20
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
growth rate for 1971-72 as economy grew by 0.9 per cent only. There was additional cost
of feeding over 1 crore Bangladeshi immigrants. Budgetary deficit has climbed up.
The rain god also did not help out Indira Gandhi. Monsoon failed in succession in 1972
and 1973. Most parts of the country faced droughts. Massive shortage of foodgrains was
reported from all regions pushing the prices up. India was still importing foodgrains for
sustenance. The war had eaten up a large chunk of foreign exchange reserve, which
depleted further with rising cost of foodgrain import.
Failed monsoon and fall in agriculture production also led to drop in power generation and
very low demand for manufactured goods. Industrial production went down. Lay-offs were
too frequent and too many in all industrial centres. This led to sharp spike in
unemployment.
Rising unemployment and low income reflected in poor healthcare and school enrolment.
One estimate suggests that there were more illiterate in India in 1975 than they are in 1947
at the time of Independence.
International developments too damaged India's economy in pre-Emergency days. West
Asia was in turmoil and 1973 oil shock drained foreign exchange reserves of India further
as the crude oil prices jumped four times from USD 3 per barrel to USD 12 per barrel
within days. Though petrol and diesel prices were under the government control, the prices
of petroleum products and fertilisers increased sharply.
Rising prices were bogging Indira Gandhi government down in public eyes. Inflation was
22 per cent in 1972-73, over 20 per cent in 1974 and over 25 percent in 1975. It affected
all. Writing in his blog, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley referred to two finance
ministers of Indira Gandhi government showing helplessness about rising prices.
Presenting Budget on February 28, 1974, YB Chavan said that "prices continue to rise"
while there was "steep fall of 9.5 per cent in agricultural output" and "there was hardly any
increase in the rate of growth of industrial production in 1972".
21
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
A year later, the then Finance Minister C Subramaniam said in his Budget speech:
"Inflation has been spreading and its devastating impact on the living standard of our
people and on the pattern of real incomes within the country has been serious enough."
Farmers, labourers and daily wage workers were the worst hit by rising prices and loss of
employment on the eve of imposition of Emergency. But the government had responded
with more regulations to control market and industries. The measures practically brought
investment to a halt and further loss of jobs.
Under these circumstances, trade union leader George Fernandes led nationwide 22-day
transport strike. This brought "starvation" to cities as supply of essential commodities
stopped. Pura ration pura kaam, nahin to hoga chakka jam (Ensure full ration and
employment else we will bring the nation to standstill) was the slogan of the protesters.
Food riots were witnessed in many parts of the country
Then there was taint of corruption on the Gandhi family. Sanjay Gandhi was given licence
to manufacture 50,000 Maruti cars a year at a time when the masses battled economic
recession, unemployment acute food scarcity and corruption at every level of government.
This only enforced the campaign launched by JP and Morarji Desai that removal of Indira
Gandhi was the only solution for deliverance of the people from hunger, poverty and
unemployment.
JP and Desai gave a call for "rebellion" against Indira Gandhi government from Ramlila
Maidan in New Delhi on June 25. By the late night Indira Gandhi was at President
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed's doorstep with an Ordinance for proclaimation of emergency.. She
made the announcement herself past midnight on All India Radio in a special broadcast.
New Delhi: That the 21-month-long Emergency imposed 40 years ago to the day
changed the political landscape of the country is well known. Less known is the impact
it had on the social and economic fabric of the country—both positive and negative.
22
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Expand
23
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Expand
24
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Expand
25
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Expand
26
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
June 26—Dozens of opposition political leaders, including the widely respected Jaya Prakash
Narayan and former Deputy Prime Minister Morarji R. Desai, were reported arrested early today
in a severe crackdown against critics of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The police would only
confirm that at least 10 had been arrested.
The President of India declared a state of emergency shortly after dawn in what the Government‐
controlled All‐India Radio called “the threat of internal disturbances.” Mrs. Gandhi said in an 8
A.M. broadcast that firm action was demanded to protect India's integrity.
The President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, said his action was necessary because of “internal
circumstances.” The President, who has nominal political powers, customarily acts only on the
recommendation of the Prime Minister.
27
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Mounting Opposition
Mrs. Gandhi has been facing mounting opposition criticism —and the prospect of mass protest—
from her opponents because of her entanglement with the Indian court system after a local court
found her guilty of electoral corruption pearlier this month.
[Reuters reported that the Indian Government had anflounced total press censorship. An
Information Ministry spokesman said all news items would have to be submitted to the
Government before publication. He did not elaborate but said rules were being framed and that the
press would be informed on them shortly.]
Continue reading the main story
A spokesman at police headquarters here said those being held had been arrested under the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, which gives the Government sweeping powers of arrest and
detention.
Socialist Reported Held
Unconfirmed reports indicated that as many as 100 persons might have been arrested in the
roundup before dawn.
The Press Trust of India reported that those picked up also included Piloo Mody leader of the right‐
wing Swatantra party, Chandra Shekhar. member of the governing Congress party and Rani Dhan,
also a member of Mrs. Ghandi's party.
Earlier, the Press Trust, an independent news agency, said the police had arrested K. R. Malkani,
editor of Motherland, paper published by the conservative Jan Sangh party.
The Press Trust, quoting an official source in Chandigarh, the capital of the northern state of
Punjab, reported that more than 35 opposition leaders, mostly members of the Jan Sangh and the
Socialist party, had been arrested by the Punjab state police under the provisions of the security
act. The report was the first indicating extensive arrests in the provinces as well as in the capital.
Mr. Desai is a leader of the old Congress party, which broke away from Mrs. Gandhi's party.
28
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
The agency also reported that an official of the opposition Socialist party, Samar Ghua, had also
been arrested.
It said that warrants for the arrest of many other opposition leaders had been issued.
The 72‐year‐old Mr. Narayan was arrested after having made a speech last night in which he called
for widespread civil disobedience against the Gandhi Government. He was awakened in the middle
of the night at the headquarters here of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, an organization named for
the late Mohandas K. Gandhi, who was not related to the Prime Minister.
Reports of other arrests, in a move unprecedented in India's 28‐year history, as an independent

nation, spread through New Delhi as India's political and legal crisis went into its third week.
Technically, a state of emergency, declared in 1971, still is in force in India, but that declaration
of emergency concerned India's security from external aggression.
The presidential declaration today came under the provision of India's legislation relating to
internal disturbances. Mrs. Gandhi went on All‐India Radio, the Government network, at 8 A.M.
speaking first in Hindi, and then in English. She said that India's integrity demanded firm action.
On Tuesday, India's Supreme Court issued an order that stripped Mrs. Gandhi of her right to vote
in Parliament but allowed her to stay on as Prime Minister for the present.
The court order, written by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, is valid until the court finishes reviewing
Mrs. Gandhi's appeal of her conviction by a local court earlier this month on charges of electoral
corruption.
Mrs. Gandhi had been convicted by a High Court judge in her home city of Allahabad on the basis
of action brought against her by Raj Narain, who ran against her in 1971. Mr. Narain has also been
arrested, according to the United News pf India.
After Mr. Narain's 1971 defeat, he initiated the legal action, which centered primarily on the charge
that she had illegally used the services of a Government official in her election campaign. To many
Indians, the charge was relatively trivial.
29
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Cleared of 12 Counts
The Allahabad judge found the Prime Minister guilty on this charge plus the improper use of
Government‐built rostrums. She was found not guilty on 12 other counts.
In his 23‐page order on the Prime Minister's appeal, Judge lyer observed that it “substantially
preserves the position of the petitioner and does not adversely affect her legal status as Prime
Minister.” But he decreed that in addition to losing her vote in Parliament, “she will neither
participate in the proceedings nor draw remuneration in her capacity” as a member of it.
They said in a communiqué Tuesday that Justice Iyer's or der “vindicates the legal posilion that
there is no impediment in the way of Indira Gandhi functioning as Prime Minister.”
Supreme Court review of Mrs. Gandhi's appeal “may well” take two or three months, Judge Iyer
said. The court's 12 other judges are on vacation, but will return July 14. The Chief Justice, A. N.
Ray, is expected to name a panel of five justices to review the original Allahabad decision.
Amid the judicial action, the opposition has been clamoring for the 57‐year‐old Mrs. Gandhi to
resign at once. Leaders of her governing Congress party. however, have insisted that she remain
in office.
In her broadcast. Mrs. Gandhi said that the President's declaration was “nothing to panic about.”
She said she was sure her listeners were conscious of what she called “deep and !widespread
conspiracy” in lindia since she had undertaken la program of measures designed. Ito reduce
disparities in a pro gram of measures for the economic welfare of the nation. She said allegations
against her Government had “surcharged the atmosphere, leading to violent incidents.”
She said the state of emergency had been proclaimed after the Government learned of the “designs”
of opposition parties, and because there was a threat to internal security.
“It is our paramount duty” she said, “to safeguard the unity and stability of the coun try and the
nation's integrity demands firm action.”
30
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Mrs. Gandhi spoke of what she called attempts to incite the military and the police not to obey
their superiors.
She charged that “certain persons” were inciting them to rebel. “The forces of disintegration are
in full play and communal passions are being aroused,” she said, threatening our unity.”
“Ours is a strong military,” she said, “and it is aware of the national responsibility.”
There has been no comment from Indian police and army leaders on Mrs. Gandhi's statements, or
on a speech last night by Mr. Narayan in which, according to an unofficial translation of his
remarks in Hindi, he suggested that the police and military should not obey unjust orders.
She said she hoped internal conditions would enable her to dispense with the emergency measure
as soon as possible.
She promised her listeners that the proclamation of the state of emergency would not affect the
lives of law‐abiding Indians.
She also announced that new economic measures would be announced soon.
In the first opposition com ment, Mohan Dharia, a prominent Congress party Member of
Parliament and critic of Mrs. Gandhi, declared today that the democracy that had been constructed
by Mrs. Gandhi's father was being “destroyed” by her through what he called “this monstrous
Operation Arrest.”
On the other hand, the chief minister of the state of Punjab, Zail Singh, a member of the Congress
party, welcomed the Government's action. “The step will go a long way in strengthening the
solidarity and unity of the country and in enabling the Government to take timely and radical
measures for the economic and social welfare of the masses,” he said.
One of the principal leaders arrested, Mr. Narayan never reached the stature of Mohandas K.
Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru, the fathers of Indian independence, but he has been one of his
country's most respected political figures. He has almost always been in opposition to the political
establishment.
31
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
A fervent Gandhi disciple, Mr. Narayan is a frail, brooding and enigmatic figure. A generation
ago, when he was being mentioned as a potential prime minister, he veered from politics and
became entranced with Vinoba Bhave, an ascetic who moved around India asking landlords to
give acreage to landless peasants.
Less than two years ago, in response to students who opposed the Government in his home state
of Bihar, Mr. Narayan returned to active politics. He has since become an increasingly vocal critic
of Mrs. Gandhi.
Mr. Narayan was born on Oct. 31, 1902, the son of a peasant. He was determined to educate
himself, however. In 1922 he went to the United States. To support himself while attending
American uni versities, mostly in Iowa and Wisconsin, he worked as a waiter, apple picker and
stockyard laborer.
He returned to India in 1929 to immerse himself in the independence struggle as a close ally of
Mr. Nehru. He moved in and out of British jails.
Initially Mr. Narayan was stanch Marxist, but he broke with the Communists in the nineteen–
forties. After independence he split with Mr. Nehru and formed a Socialist party, which he led
until withdrawing from politics.
FORCED STERILISATION
The death of 15 women at two state-run sterilisation camps in Chhattisgarh has put a
spotlight on India's dark history of botched sterilisations.
The drive to sterilise began in the 1970s when, encouraged by loans amounting to tens of millions
of dollars from the World Bank, the Swedish International Development Authority and the UN
Population Fund, India embarked on an ambitious population control programme.
During the 1975 Emergency - when civil liberties were suspended - Sanjay Gandhi, son of the
former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, began what was described by many as a "gruesome
campaign" to sterilise poor men. There were reports of police cordoning off villages and virtually
dragging the men to surgery.
32
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
The campaign also made an appearance in Salman Rushdie's novel, Midnight's Children.
An astonishing 6.2 million Indian men were sterilised in just a year, which was "15 times the
number of people sterilised by the Nazis", according to science journalist Mara Hvistendahl. Two
thousand men died from botched operations.
"India has a dark history of state-sponsored population control, often with eugenic aims - targeting
the poor and underprivileged," Ms Hvistendahl told me. "The women's tragic deaths [in
Chhattisgarh] show that it still happens today."
Since family planning efforts began in the 1970s, India has focused its population control efforts
on women, even though, as scientists say, sterilisations are easier to perform in men. "This may be
because women are deemed less likely to protest," says Ms Hvistendahl.
India carried out nearly 4 million sterilisations during 2013-2014, according to official figures.
Less than 100,000 of these surgeries were done on men. More than 700 deaths were reported due
to botched surgeries between 2009 and 2012. There were 356 reported cases of complications
arising out of the surgeries.
Though the government has adopted a raft of measures and standards for conducting safe
sterilisations, an unseemly haste to meet high state-mandated quotas has often led to botched
operations and deaths.
Women have died from forced sterilisations in China where population control was
institutionalised since the 1980s. "But the conditions in Indian sterilisation camps sound worse,"
says Ms Hvistendahl. There have been reports of the appalling quality of tubectomies for many
years now, and authorities still don't seem to realise that it is an important reproductive health
concern. And the shoddy surgeries continue, risking the lives of poor women.
It was no longer a question of whether it would happen. The question now was when it would
happen and how bad it would be. So, like every other night that month in Haryana’s Uttawar
village, on the night of 24 November 1976 too, sleepless villagers huddled in their compounds,
smoking hookahs.
Recalling the events of that fateful night, Mohammad Yaqoob says he was part of a huddle of eight
villagers. All they could do was wait and watch. For over three months preceding that night, senior
administration officials and police officers had taken turns trying to convince villagers to go for
33
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
nasbandi (sterilization). Posters extolling family planning were pasted all over the village. They
had slogans that said: “Ek, do, teen bachhe, ghar mein rehte hain achhe; thode ho to achha khaye,
ghanain ho to bhuke chillayein (with 1, 2 or 3 kids, you will have a happy house. Fewer kids means
more food for each. Greater the number, more the hunger).
At 3am, the loudspeakers began blaring, asking every man over the age of 15 to assemble at a
government high school on the main road, a kilometre away from Yaqoob’s house. Their fears
mounted as 73-year-old Yaqoob, then all of 34, and other villagers heard the sound of hooves
approaching. It was the ghoda police (policemen on horses) warning them of the consequences of
not obeying orders.
“They were carrying guns and swords. We had never seen anything like that before," recalls 90-
year-old Fajri, a resident.
Close to 12,000 policemen had ringed the village, Yaqoob claims. Though the announcements said
nothing about the intent, villagers were in no doubt—they just didn’t anticipate being lathicharged
and physically abused. And above all, coerced. There were targets to fulfil, they were told.
Sterilization was no longer a choice for the villagers to make. It was mandatory.
According to a story in The Indian Express newspaper on 8 March 1977, “The whole village
(Uttawar) was surrounded by the police. With the menfolk on the road, the police went into the
village to see if anyone was hiding... the men on the road were sorted into eligible cases... and they
were taken from there to clinics to be sterilized".
Uttawar, bordering Mewat and Palwal districts of Haryana, is a Muslim-majority village. Even
though people of other religions resisted sterilization as well, the opposition was intense among
Muslims who believe god is the razak—the one who provides subsistence—and that birth control
is proscribed. So, the drive was mostly targeted at Muslims. “No matter how many children I have,
it’s my concern how I feed them, not the government’s," says Yaqoob. And while the birth of a
child meant an extra mouth to feed, for people like Yaqoob, it also meant an extra pair of hands to
help the family.
The opposition to sterilization also stemmed from myths associated with the operation—mostly to
do with diminished virility.
Realizing it was no longer a matter of choice, Yaqoob reached the high school. On the way, he
saw police positioned at Eidgah (an open ground for offering Eid prayers), the old bus stand and a
shrine on the hill. In fact, the shrine had a machine gun set up, he recalls. Police entered houses,
34
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
mixed rice with wheat and ghee and broke charpoys and pots. “Some even entered the mosque
with shoes," Yaqoob claims.
By around 8.30am, close to 800 people had gathered at the school. They were all herded into buses
like cattle. The buses were taken to Hathin tehsil police station. “Some were arrested on false
charges of possessing arms. Almost 250, including me, were taken to a government hospital and
sterilized," says Yaqoob. “Everyone had a number. We were taken in a line—one after the other...
number-wise."
Yaqoob had four children at that point—two boys and two girls. “Some who were sterilized had
no children or had only daughters," he says. The villagers claim around 20 people died after being
sterilized.
There are no official numbers on how many were forced into sterilization, and how many were
convinced, but as per Marika Vicziany’s book Coercion In A Soft State: The Family Planning
Program of India, “between 25 June 1975, and March 1977, about 11 million men and women
were sterilized and 1 million women had intra-uterine devices (IUDs) inserted".
India became the first country in the world to launch a family planning programme to check
population growth in 1951. By the early 1960s, it used a more “target-oriented" approach, with a
massive effort to promote the use of IUDs and condoms. But it was only in 1975 that the Congress
government, helmed by Indira Gandhi, and under the stewardship of her son Sanjay Gandhi,
moved to the more forceful “camp approach" to promote sterilization.
According to Vinod Mehta’s book The Sanjay Story, “Even before 25 June 1975, Mrs Gandhi was
under pressure from major western industrial democracies, speaking through the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank and the Aid India Consortium, to impart a sense of urgency
and realism to the family planning programme in India". The book says the West had been
advocating a crash sterilization-based family planning programme—“crash because, according to
them, valuable time had been squandered since 1947".
Between 1972 and 1980, the World Bank doled out $66 million in loans to the country for the
express purpose of population control, according to Mara Hvistendahl in her book Unnatural
Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls And The Consequences Of A World Full Of Men.
The job of execution was handed over to Sanjay Gandhi. After the Emergency was imposed, the
West began hardselling the sterilization programme—and Indira Gandhi was persuaded to
incorporate sterilization into her Emergency package.
35
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Before launching it nationwide, the plan was first piloted in Delhi. The responsibility was given to
Delhi’s lieutenant governor Krishan Chand, Navin Chawla (Chand’s secretary), Vidyaben Shah
(president of the New Delhi Municipal Council) and Rukhsana Sultana, a boutique owner.
From the steps of the Jama Masjid, Rukhsana with Vidyaben propagated the benefits of
vasectomies and tubectomies. Sterilization camps were set up. People were handed over ₹ 75, a
week off from work, a tin of ghee and, in some cases, cycles. “Sweepers, rickshaw pullers,
labourers—mostly immigrants—were rounded off and forced to get sterilized," recalls 73-year-
old Abdus Sattar, an old Delhi resident.
Chand, in April 1976, sent a circular to all government offices, schools, colleges, departmental
heads of the Delhi administration, civic bodies and public sector undertakings. All those having
more than two children would have to get sterilized. “Teachers and government employees were
given targets—if you get a certain number of people sterilized, you will get ₹ 50-100," says 75-
year-old Saleem Hussain Siddiqui, another old Delhi resident.
Processes as basic as renewal of driving licences were stalled if a person did not produce a
sterilization certificate. The same was the case with free medical treatment in hospitals.
Such was the fear of consequences of not being sterilized that some people even took hilarious
measures to prove that they had undergone the procedure or would not produce any more children.
“Some people even faked a talaaqnama (divorce certificate) to say that they aren’t eligible for
nasbandi," says Sattar.
The sterilization tactics differed from state to state. In Rajasthan, people with more than three
children were banned from holding any government job until they had been sterilized. “In Madhya
Pradesh, irrigation water was withheld from village fields until sterilization quotas were met. In
Uttar Pradesh, teachers were told that they must submit to sterilization or lose a month’s salary.
Health department officials in Uttar Pradesh had their pay withheld until they met their quotas for
sterilization. In Bihar, food rations were denied to families with more than two children. The local
government refused to put in a much-needed village well until 100% of eligible couples underwent
sterilization," according to an article published by Population Research Institute, a US-based non-
profit research group, on 24 June 2014.
Emergency was imposed on 25 June 1975, but for Yaqoob and his village, the word hit home only
when they were shoved into those buses, and operated upon.
36
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
Despite getting a conditional stay order from the vacation bench of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer
against the order of the Allahabad High Court, the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was
imposed the National Emergency on the night of 25 June 1975. It is said that she was not happy
with the conditional stay as she was facing the protest of different political outfits led by Jai
Prakash Narain who were demanding her resignation from the office of the Prime Minister. Mr.
Morarji Desai was even more aggressive. He told a foreign journalist: ‘We intend to overthrow
her, to force her to resign. For good. The lady would not survive our movement….Thousands of
us will surround of her House to prevent her from going out…We shall camp there night and day.”
But both J P and Morarji Desai underestimated Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She did what no one never
imagined she would do. At 11 p.m. on 25th June, 1975, accompanied by Siddharth Shankar Ray,
the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, whom she had entrusted the work of checking the
constitutional pros and cons of the Emergency, went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to inform the then
President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed that her Government had decided to impose a state of internal
Emergency at once. Her Government meant herself as she did not consult her Cabinet colleagues
for taking any such drastic decision. There was a famous saying that there was only one Cabinet
Minister in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet, and that was only Mrs. Gandhi herself. Mrs. Indira Gandhi
informed her Cabinet colleagues on the next day when the Emergency was already declared (Fali
S. Nariman, Before Memory Fades, 2012). The then President Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed
declared the Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on the sole advice of Prime Minister
Mrs. Indira Gandhi and also suspended the fundamental rights of the people under Article 359 of
the Constitution. President Ahmed acted like a rubber stamp who did not even ask the Prime
Minister to follow the correct constitutional procedure. He was fully empowered under Article 78
of the Constitution to ask the Prime Minister to revisit her disastrous decision. But he simply and
in fact blindly signed on the death warrant of Indian democracy. He failed the people of India(Fali
S. Nariman, The State of the Nation, 2013). The President is the guardian of the Constitution and
is duty bound to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law as per the mandate of
his oath. The then President Mr. Ahmed disappointed the people of the country and signed on the
dotted lines as dictated by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In fact, the President gave a license of anarchy to
the Government for violating peoples’ fundamental rights which the Government violated on a
large scale. The President acted like Prime Minister’s President, following her advice in toto and
did not apply his mind at all. Eminent jurist Mr. Fali Nariman criticized the role of the
37
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
constitutional functionaries during Emergency period in the following words: One of the lessons
of the internal Emergency has been not to place excessive reliance on constitutional functionaries.
They failed us-the President, Ministers of the Government, most of the Members of Parliament
and even senior judges of our Court-the latter for their majority judgment in April 1976 in ADM
Jabalpur case-upholding the Proclamation of Internal Emergency. The then Prime Minister Mrs.
Indira Gandhi justified the Emergency as necessary not only to preserve order but also to save
democracy, protect the social revolution, and preserve national integrity-in sum, to preserve the
seamless web. The rebellion threatening the country, Mrs. Gandhi said, was the manifestation ‘of
the deep and wide conspiracy brewing ever since she began to introduce certain progressive
measures of benefit to the common man and woman of India. Up to some extent Mrs. Gandhi was
right as the opposition was also misusing the judicial verdict against her and was adamant to route
her out from the Prime Minister’s position. They, the leaders like JP and Morarji Desai, were
underestimating Mrs. Gandhi and instigated her to follow the coercive measures. They were not
even ready to wait for the outcome of her appeal which was pending before the Supreme Court for
final adjudication by a larger bench. As stated earlier, along with the Proclamation of internal
Emergency, peoples’ fundamental rights were also suspended by the President under Article 359
of the Constitution by issuing a Presidential Order on 27th June, 1975 and thousands of people
particularly the leaders of opposition parties such as Morarji Desai, Jai Prakash Narain, Charan
Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L. K. Advani were detained under the Maintenance of Internal
Security Act. Preventive detention orders were made freely, severe press censorship was imposed
and civil liberties were thrown into dustbin. Then came the 38th Constitutional Amendment
making the satisfaction of the President with regard to the existence of circumstances rendering it
necessary to promulgate an Ordinance final, conclusive, and non-justiciable. Similarly, the
satisfaction of the President in regard to Proclamation of Emergency under Articles 352 and 360
of the Constitution was also made final, conclusive and non-justiciable. Then the 39th
Constitutional Amendment was brought out to undo the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
which had set aside the election of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. This constitutional amendment provided
that no election to either House of Parliament of any person who held the office of the Prime
Minister at the time of such election or who was appointed as Prime Minister after such election
shall be called in question except before the authority or body and in such manner as may be
prescribed by law made by Parliament. The election of such person was thus removed from the
38
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
purview of the courts which had otherwise jurisdiction to decide that matter. It was further declared
that no law made by Parliament before the commencement of the 39th Constitutional Amendment
in so far as it related to election petitions and matters connected therewith shall apply or shall be
deemed ever to have applied to or in relation to the election of any person who was Prime Minister;
such election shall not be deemed to be void before such commencement; and notwithstanding any
order made by any court such election shall continue to be valid in all respects and any findings
on which such order was based shall be deemed to have always been void and of no effect. The
amendment was a blatantly perverse and outrageous attempt not merely to overrule the judgment
of the Allahabad High Court, but to immunize the election of a single individual, namely, Mrs.
Indira Gandhi. Perhaps it was the grossest abuse of legislative power in any country claiming to
be wedded to parliamentary democracy and rule of law. The 1975 Emergency was the daylight
robbery of human rights. This Emergency was the negation of constitutional ethos and principles.
It was a clear example of dictatorship and authoritarian proclamation. The people of the country
assumed that had Justice Krishna Iyer granted a full stay as requested by the then Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi’s counsel Nani Palkhivala, the Emergency could not have been declared in the
country. Mrs. Gandhi was expecting absolute stay from the Court and had prepared her speech to
address the nation on 23rd June, 1975 at 8.15 p.m. Even Justice Krishna Iyer also mentioned that
some Congressmen blamed him for creating such situation which instigated Prime Minister Mrs.
Indira Gandhi to declare the Emergency. But this is a matter of fact that two judges Justices
Jagmohan Lal Sinha and V. R. Krishna Iyer created such situations which shook the power
corridors and changed the equations. Had Justice Sinha decided in favour of Mrs. Gandhi, the
situation would have been different. Justice Sinha demonstrated unique courage and conviction to
the cause of rule of law and constitutionalism. He was a fearless judge. Mr. Shanti Bhushan states
that Justice Sinha’s judgment was an act of great courage. This courage was in line with the
courage shown later by Justice H. R. Khanna of the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur case. The
courage of these two great judges was in clear contrast to the judgment of other judges of the
Supreme Court in the ADM Jabalpur case in which four judges of the Supreme Court except Justice
Khanna declared that during the Emergency there was no right to life of liberty and even if people
were shot illegally, the courts could not intervene. He decided as per the letter and spirit of the law
which went against Mrs. Gandhi and changed the horizons of politics in our country. Krishna
Iyer’s conditional stay also became the bone of contention between the ruling party and the
39
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
opposition which ultimately led the country towards Emergency. The 1975 Emergency was the
example of gross misuse of constitutional powers and processes by some individuals who were
intoxicated with power. They put the nation on fire. It was the insult of the founding fathers that
made the Constitution. It was a clear negation of democracy and rule of law. It was the darkest
period in the constitutional history of our country when even the Supreme Court disappointed the
people when it turned down the Habeas Corpus petitions. It was only Justice H. R. Khanna who
delivered a bold dissenting judgment in that case which supported peoples’ rights, dignity and rule
of law. Justice Khanna’s bold dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case made him a hero of
the masses overnight though it proved him very costly as he was superseded by his junior colleague
Justice Beg for the office of the Chief Justice of India in January 1977. Justice Khanna’s sacrifice
was highly appreciated not only in our country but throughout the globe. In one of his articles
Justice Krishna Iyer himself appreciated Justice Khanna’s bold dissenting judgment in these
words: Khanna was a titan morally and jurally. Judges make history not by virtue of a long tenure
or by pomp of office as Chief Justices. His career was not marked by either of these claims but he
is still a lasting legend. His single monumental dissent, and his majestic resignation when
superseded, made him a hallowed judicial celebrity. Any student of the Supreme Court will be
arrested by the extraordinary event that made Khanna illustrious. For him, the voice of the
conscience and the value of human rights were burning realities. As in the case of Lord Coke and
Lord Atkin, these were for him non-negotiable noesis and oath-bound obligation. In Indira
Gandhi’s case, Justice Krishna Iyer’s bold stand and commitment to the cause of justice that the
Executive could not override the independence of judiciary was highly appreciated by the people.
He proved to be a courageous, constitutionally committed and fearless Judge who did not bother
about the consequences. India’s eminent Constitutional lawyer Mr. H.M. Seervai (otherwise
critical of Justice Krishna Iyer and many of his judgments), has this to say for the period just before
the declaration of Emergency (what he called the first period): Of the first period, the historian will
say that the Supreme Court moved towards its finest hour, a day before the Proclamation of
Emergency, when on June 24, 1975, Krishna Iyer J., following judicial precedents, rejected an
application made by Mrs. Gandhi that the Allahabad High Court’s order, finding her guilty of
corrupt election practices and disqualifying her for six years, should be totally suspended. In the
best traditions of the judiciary, Justice Krishna Iyer granted a conditional stay of the appeal-
although he had been reminded by her eminent counsel Mr. Nani A. Palkhiwala that ‘the nation
40
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
was solidly behind her as Prime Minister’ and that ‘there were momentous consequences,
disastrous to the country, if anything less than the total suspension of the order under appeal were
made’. Great praise indeed by a great jurist for a great judge, who rendered a great service to the
nation. To Justice Krishna Iyer, law was ‘value-loaded.’ His social philosophy was more than an
interpretative tool. It was the mainspring of all his judicial dicta. He was a fearless and favourless
judge. He recalls in his book Off the Bench how the then Law Minister H.R. Gokhale, a good
friend, expressed a desire to meet him at his residence after Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s disqualification
by the Allahabad High Court judgment in connection with her appeal. He politely refused to see
him and indicated that the correct way was to file the appeal in the Registry which would be taken
up promptly. Indeed, it was a right step of Justice Krishna Iyer taken as per the traditions of the
judicial system of the country! Later, even Justice Krishna Iyer also criticized the Emergency and
communicated his feelings to Mrs. Gandhi in a private meeting. It is significant to mention that
Mr. Nani A. Palkhivala, who had defended Mrs. Gandhi in her election case before Justice Krishna
Iyer, returned her brief when Emergency was imposed by her Government. Palkhivala was a great
supporter of human rights and had appeared in numerous case in the Supreme Court against the
Government where violations of fundamental rights were involved. On 27th June, 1975, he wrote
a letter to Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi. The contents of letter are reproduced below: My dear Prime
Minister, I spoke to Mr. Gokhale, the Law Minister, yesterday at 1 o’clock, requesting him to
covey to you, with great regret, I had decided to withdraw from the appeal in view of the
development in the morning. I would have normally called upon you personally and explained the
position, but in the circumstances of yesterday, it did not seem feasible. Then I again spoke to Mr.
Gokhale twice in the afternoon and I do hope you got the message before it was released to the
press at about 6 p.m. I was very anxious that you should know about it from me first. There is
nothing on record to indicate whether Mrs. Indira Gandhi replied to Nani Palkhivala’s above
mentioned letter or whether she called for him to ask for a personal explanation. Anybody who
believes in democracy will certain appreciate the stand taken by Nani A. Palkhivala in returning
Mrs. Gandhi’s brief in protest to Emergency. It was a courageous act which is commendable. It
was a clear lesson to Mrs. Gandhi that she cannot take people granted. Lawyers have not only to
defend their clients; they are equally bound to protect the law. Mrs. Gandhi’s decision for imposing
Emergency was not good for the democracy and constitutional governance. The Emergency period
(1975-77) was the worst time in the constitutional history of our country when human rights of the
41
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
masses were violated on large scale by the power-intoxicated government and its agencies and
even the Supreme Court could not protect the peoples’ rights and surrendered before the dictatorial
forces in the Habeas Corpus case. But when the regime was changed by the democratic means in
1977, the Supreme Court asserted itself and started a new era of judicial activism. Even during the
Emergency, the Supreme Court struck down the 39th Constitutional Amendment in Indira Nehru
Gandhi v. Raj Narain case, by a majority which had purported to immunize the election of Mrs.
Indira Gandhi from any judicial scrutiny. Justices Khanna, Mathew and Chandrachud constituted
the majority which struck down the amendment on the ground that it offended the basic structure
of the Constitution which provided for a judicial process to challenge an election while Chief
Justice Ray and Justice Beg who constituted the minority held that the basic structure of the
Constitution was not touched in any way and on that ground upheld the validity of the amendment.
Justice Mathew described the amendment as ‘the result of the exercise of an irresponsible, despotic
discretion governed solely by’ what he deemed ‘a political necessity or expediency’! If it was a
legislative judgment disposing of a particularly election dispute, it was not the exercise of
constituent power. If it was the exercise of constitutional power, it would damage or destroy an
essential feature of democracy as established by the Constitution, namely, the resolution of election
disputes by an authority by the exercise of judicial power by ascertaining the adjudicative facts
and applying the relevant law for determining the real representative of the people. Justice
Chandrachud observed that the amending provision was an outright negation of the right to
equality guaranteed by Article 14, a right which more than any other right was a basic postulate of
the Constitution. He held that the offending clauses were arbitrary and calculated to damage or
destroys the rule of law. Let down by the courts in ADM Jabalpur case, the people of India who
are sovereign themselves stood up for democracy and liberty and showed the door to the
Government Mrs. Indira Gandhi and her sycophants in the general elections of March 1977. The
new Parliament by the 43rd and 44th Constitutional Amendments undid to a large extent the
mischief of the 38th and 42nd Constitutional Amendments. In particular regard to Proclamation of
Emergency, several safeguards were additionally provided. One of the safeguards was that no
proclamation of Emergency could be issued by the President unless the decision of the Union
Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister is communicated to the President in writing. The approval
of the proclamation by the Parliament could only be by a majority of the total membership of each
House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and
42
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
voting. Another important provision was that fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 20 and 21
could not be suspended under any circumstances, thus undoing the harm done by the Habeas
Corpus case. And after Emergency, the Supreme Court asserted itself on a large scale and came to
the rescue of the human rights and dignity. The Emergency of 1975 was the darkest period in the
constitutional history of India. It was the day light robbery of human rights. It was the negation of
rule of law and democracy. The people shocked that the founding fathers gave a constitution to
the country and how that constitution was thrown into dustbin by Mrs. Gandhi to protect her seat.
It is rightly said that the fear to lose power is the biggest fear which Mrs. Gandhi had in 1975. The
things were made worse by the judgment of the Supreme Court in ADM Jabalpur case. This
judgment is a blot on the forehead of the Supreme Court. This shows how even the guards can
betray the people during crisis. The fear of supersession was easily reflected on the majority judges
such as Justice Beg, Bhagwati, and Chandrachud. The press was censored and people were
deprived of information. A dictatorial regime was established. Fear was sanctioned by the apex
court. Parliament was failed. The Constitution was converted into a periodical. Constitutional
amendments were carried out to serve the individual interests. Only the God was the defender of
the people. Such a dangerous atmosphere the Emergency brought out in our country. Can the
Emergency be declared again? Yes, it can. But not on the ground of internal disturb and Articles
20 and 21 cannot be suspended. Now as per the existing constitutional provisions the President
cannot declare Emergency on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. He is required to act on the
written advice of the Cabinet. The President can ask the Cabinet to reconsider its decision once
but thereafter he is bound to act as per ministerial advice. The Parliament can check the validity of
the Emergency and can revoke it any time. If the Emergency is proclaimed on extra-constitutional
grounds, the courts can check the legality of such emergency. Given the state of strong media and
public opinion, no Government can declare Emergency without any solid ground. The lessons of
1975 Emergency are duly incorporated in the Constitution by the 44th Constitutional Amendment
Act. The vigilant people in 21st century will hardly tolerate any dictatorial regime. Even in 1975
we had courageous men and women amidst us who opposed and challenged the dictatorial powers
at the cost of their future prospects. The great souls of Justice H. R. Khanna and Sinha will
encourage the people to stand against injustice and lawlessness.
43
SOCIOLOGY OF LAW

L Is Great

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

L Is Great

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SOCIO ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF 1975 EMERGENCY

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Submitted to:-Mr. Sangeet Kumar

By: Keshav sharma

Assistant Professor of Sociology of law

Roll No: 2022

1st Year BB.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

“Socio economic effects of 1975 emergency” submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

BBA. L.L.B (Hons) 1st YEAR

Sociology of law, under whose guidance, I structured my project.

it in the present way.

out at every stage of my project.

3. PROMISE DUE TO AFFECTION…………………………………..15-17

4. PAST VOLUNTARY SERVICES…......................................................................................17-18

5. TIME BARRED DEBT. ……………………………………………………………..18-23

6. CONCLUSION AND ……………………………………………………………...24

A state of emergency in India refers to a period of governance under an

National emergency under Article 352

State emergency under Article 356

Financial emergency under Article 360

also the internet sources.

1. Primary Sources: Reports by reputed organisations.

2. Secondary Sources: Newspapers, journals, books, cases and websites.

economic changes that were thrusted upon the natives of India.

Aims and Objectives

1) The researcher tends to understand the concept of emergency.

2) To understand the changes brought by emergency.

3) To contemplate whether the emergency was justified or not

DESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO EMERGENCY

Disqualification of Indira Gandhi as an MP

Political and civic unrest

Raj Narain verdict

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DURING 1975 EMERGENCY

Continue reading the main story

Socialist Reported Held

Reports of other arrests, in a move unprecedented in India's 28‐year history, as an independent

Você também pode gostar