PROCLAIMNATION OF NATIONAL

EMERGENCY IN INDIA 1975" A CRITICAL

ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Avinash Samal
Faculty Member in Political Science

SUBMITTED BY:
Dulesh Sahu
Roll No. 54, Section B
Semester III, B.A., LL.B
(Hons.)

SUBMITTED ON:
January 15th,2017

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY RAIPUR,

CHHATTISGARH
 Declaration

I hereby declare that this research work titled Proclamation of National Emergency in India
1975 A critical Analysis is my own work and represents my own ideas. And wherever
others ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original
sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all the principles of academic honesty and
integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in
my submission.

Dulesh Sahu
Roll no 54 , Section B
B.A. LLB., 2nd year
 Acknowledgements

I feel highly elated to work on the topic Proclamation of National Emergency in India 1975
A critical Analysis .

The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I
express my deepest regard and gratitude for Dr. Avinash Samal.His consistent supervision,
constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in understanding
and carrying out the nuances of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this
project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing
extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Dulesh Sahu
Semester 3
 Contents

Introduction 1

Objectives of study 2

Scope of study 2

Methodology 2

Chapter 1- Events leading to Emergency 3

1.1 Rise of Indira Gandhi
1.2 Gujarat and Bihar Movement
1.3 Increasing Control of Government over Judicary
1.4 Political and Civic Unrest
1.5 Raj Narian Verdict
1.6 Railaway Strike of 1974
Chapter 2 Major Events During Emergency 6
2.1 Emergency on Fundamental Right
2.2 Emergency and Arrest of Leaders
2.3 Law, Human Rights and Election
2.4 Forced Sterlization
Chapter 3 Controversies regarding Emergency 13
3.1 Was Emergency Necessary
3.2 What Happened during Emergency

Chapter 4 Politics after Emergency 16

4.1 LokSabha Election 1977
4.2 Janta Government
4.3 Legacy
Concluding Obeservations 20
 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. 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 Raj 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"1
In India, "the Emergency" a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977
when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had a state of emergency declared across the country.
Officially issued by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed under Article 352(1) of
the Constitution because of the prevailing "internal disturbance", the Emergency was in effect
from 25 June 1975 until its withdrawal on 21 March 1977. The order bestowed upon the Prime
Minister the authority to rule by decree, allowing elections to be suspended and civil liberties to
be curbed. For much of the Emergency, most of Gandhi's political opponents were imprisoned
and the press was censored. Several other human rights violations were reported from the time,
including a forced mass-sterilization campaign spearheaded by Sanjay Gandhi, the Prime
Minister's son. The Emergency is one of the most controversial periods of independent India's
history. Documents that have surfaced over the past few years indicate that Indira Gandhi had
planned to impose the emergency only temporarily for some time till the violence that was
erupting in the country had subsided.

1
K. Jayasudha Reddy and Joy V. Joseph, Executive Discretion and Article 356 of the Constitution of India: A
Comparative Critique, vol 8.1 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, (March 2004),
1
Objectives of Study

There are three primary objectives of study.

1. To understand Event leading to Emergency
2. To study a brief of Major Events of Emergency and Conterversy regarding
Emergency.
3. To illustrate and study Politics after Emergency.

Scope of Study

The scope of study includes the purview within which the project work lies. This topic has
been clearly enunciated with the help of articles from magazines, newspapers and other such
e-article databases that have been explored. The subject explores the intricacies of
Proclamation of National Emergency in India 1975 A critical Analysis.

Methodology of Study

This project work is descriptive & analytical in approach. It is largely based on secondary &
electronic sources of data. Internet & other references, as guided by faculty of political
science are primarily helpful for the completion of this project.

2
 Chapter 1
Event leading to National Emergency
1.Rise of Indira Gandhi

Between 1967 and 1971, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi came to obtain near-absolute control
over the government and the Indian National Congress party, as well as a huge majority in
Parliament. The first was achieved by concentrating the central government's power within
the Prime Minister's Secretariat, rather than the Cabinet, whose elected members she saw as a
threat and distrusted. For this she relied on her principal secretary, P. N. Haksar, a central figure
in Indira's inner circle of advisors. Further, Haksar promoted the idea of a "committed
bureaucracy" that required hitherto-impartial government officials to be "committed" to
ideology of the ruling party of the day.

Within the Congress, Indira ruthlessly outmanoeuvred her rivals, forcing the party to split in
1969into the Congress (O) (comprising the old-guard known as the "Syndicate") and her
Congress (R). A majority of the All-India Congress Committee and Congress MPs sided with
the prime minister. Indira's party was of a different breed from the Congress of old, which had
been a robust institution with traditions of internal democracy. In the Congress (R), on the other
hand, members quickly realised that their progress within the ranks depended solely on their
loyalty to Indira Gandhi and her family, and ostentatious displays of sycophancy became
routine. In the coming years, Indira's influence was such that she could install hand-picked
loyalists as chief ministers of states, rather than their being elected by the Congress legislative
party.

Indira's ascent was backed by her charismatic appeal among the masses that was aided by her
government's near-radical leftward turns. These include the July 1969 nationalisation of several
major banks and the September 1970 abolition of the privy purse; these were often done
suddenly, via ordinance, to the universal shock of her opponents. Subsequently, unlike the
Syndicate and other opponents, Indira was seen as "standing for socialism in economics and
secularism in matters of religion, as being pro-poor and for the development of the nation as a
whole."[4] The prime minister was especially adored by the disadvantaged sectionsthe poor,
Dalits, women and minorities. For them, she was their Indira Amma, a personification of
Mother India.

In the 1971 general elections, the people rallied behind Indira's populist slogan of Garibi
Hatao! (Get rid of poverty!) to award her a huge majority (352 seats out of 518). "By the margin

3
of its victory," historian Ramachandra Guha later wrote, Congress (R) came to be known as the
real Congress, "requiring no qualifying suffix."[4] In December 1971, under her proactive war
leadership, India routed arch-enemy Pakistan in a war that led to the independence of
Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan. Awarded the Bharat Ratna the next month, she was at her
greatest peak; for her biographer Inder Malhotra, "The Economist's description of her as the
'Empress of India' seemed apt." Even opposition leaders, who routinely accused her of being a
dictator and of fostering a personality cult, referred to her as Durga, a Hindu goddess

2.Gujarat and Bihar Movements

Students protests in Gujarat and Bihar, both of which were Congress ruled States, had
far reaching impact on the politics of the two States and national politics. In January 1974
students in Gujarat started an agitation against rising prices of food grains, cooking oil and
other essential commodities, and against corruption in high places. The students protest was
joined by major opposition parties and became widespread leading to the imposition of
Presidents rule in the state. The opposition parties demanded fresh elections to the state
legislature. Morarji Desai, a prominent leader of Congress (O), who was the main rival of Indira
Gandhi when he was in the Congress, announced that he would go on an indefinite fast if fresh
elections were not held in the State. Under intense pressure from students, supported by the
opposition political parties, assembly elections were held in Gujarat in June 1975. The Congress
was defeated in this

election.

In March 1974 students came together in Bihar to protest against rising prices, food scarcity,
unemployment and corruption. After a point they invited Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), who had
given up active politics and was involved in social work, to lead the student movement. He
accepted it on the condition that the movement will remain non-violent and will not limit itself
to Bihar. Thus the students movement assumed a political character and had national appeal.
People from all walks of life now entered the movement. Jayaprakash Narayam demanded the
dismissal of the Congress government in Bihar and gave a call for total revolution in the social,
economic and political spheres in order to establish what he considered to be true democracy. A
series of bandhs, gehraos, and strikes were organised in protest against the Bihar government.
The government, however, refused to resign.

4
3. Increasing government control of the judiciary

In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court said that the Constitution could not be amended
by Parliament if the changes affect basic issues such as fundamental rights. To nullify this
judgement, Parliament dominated by the Indira Gandhi Congress, passed the 24th
Amendment in 1971. Similarly, after the government lost a Supreme Court case for
withdrawing the Privy Purse given to erstwhile princes, Parliament passed the 26th
Amendment. This gave constitutional validity to the government's abolition of the Privy Purse
and nullified the Supreme Court's order.

This judiciaryexecutive battle would continue in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case,
where the 24th Amendment was called into question. With a wafer-thin majority of 7 to 6, the
bench of the Supreme Court restricted Parliament's amendment power by stating it could not be
used to alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution. Subsequently, Prime Minister Gandhi
made A. N. Raythe senior most judge amongst those in the minority in Kesavananda
BharatiChief Justice of India. Ray superseded three judges more senior to himJ. M.
Shelat, K.S. Hegde and Groverall members of the majority in Kesavananda Bharati. Indira
Gandhi's tendency to control the judiciary met with severe criticism, both from the press and
political opponents such as Jayaprakash Narayan ("JP").

4. Political and civic unrest

During 197375, political unrest against the Indira Gandhi government increased across the
country. (This led some Congress party leaders to demand for a move towards a presidential
system, 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
1975, Gandhi's party was defeated by the Janata alliance, formed by parties opposed to the
ruling 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 MarchApril 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,
5
and labour organisations 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.

Even within parliament, the government faced much criticism. Ever since she took charge as
Prime Minister in 1966, Indira Gandhi's government had to face ten no-confidence motions in
the Lok Sabha. 2

5. 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 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".
However, strikes in trade, student and government unions swept across the country. Led by JP,
Narain, Satyendra Narayan Sinha and Morarji Desai, protestors flooded the streets of Delhi
close to the Parliament building and 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.

2
"Indira Jaising: 'In India, you cant even dream of equal justice. Not at all'". The Guardian. The Guardian.
Retrieved 7 May2017.
6
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. 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.

6. Railway Strike of 1974

The National Coordination Committee for Railwaymens Struggle led by George

Fernandes gave a call for nationwide strike by all employees of the Railways for pressing their
demands related to bonus and service conditions. The government was opposed to these
demands. So, the employees of Indias largest public sector undertaking went on a strike in May
1974. The strike by the Railway employees added to the atmosphere of labour unrest. It
Also raised issues like rights of the workers and whether employees of essential services should
adopt measures like strikes. The government declared the strike illegal. As the government
refused to concede the demands of the striking workers, arrested many of their leaders and
deployed the Territorial Army to protect railway tracks, the strike had to be called off after
twenty days without any settlement.

7
 Chapter 2
Major Events during the Emergency

1. EMERGENCY ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

There are some cases when the Fundamental Rights infringes during national
emergency. In the case Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab190 emergency was declared on an
earlier occasion during Indo-China war. The persons who have been detained under the Defence
of India rules had no right to move the court for the enforcement of Art 14, 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India and the right was suspended under Art 359 of the Constitution of India.
The suspension was partial. The rights were suspended for legally detained person and not for
the persons who have been detained illegally. It was for the first time during emergency
imposed on 26th June, 1975 that Article 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India were
suspended without any reference to any law. The Supreme Court said that a citizen would not
be deprived to move the court for a writ of habeas corpus of the detention is mala fide. In the
case Maharashtra State v. Prabhakar191 liberty has not been deprived under the Defence of
India act, or any rule made there under, then his right to move the court will not be suspended.
In the case Ram Manohor Lohia v. State of Bihar192 the
Supreme Court said that the right of a person to move a court is not suspended when he has
been detained in violation of the mandatory provision of the Defence of India act. The order of
the president did not form a bar to all applications for the release for the detention under the act.
In the case Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan193, the question arose whether Art. 16 of the
Court said that Art. 16 of the Constitution of India remained operative even though Art. 14 of
the Constitution of India was suspended. The court said that enforcement of Fundamental
Rights was suspended which were specifically mentioned in the Presidents order. In the case
Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India194 it was held that Presidents order which has been issued
under Art. 359 (1) of the Constitution of India cannot be challenged as being discriminatory. In
the case ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla195, right to move the court to enforce Art. 21 of
the Constitution of India was suspended under Art. 359 of the Constitution of India during
internal emergency (1975-1977). In this case the Presidents order was the one issued during
emergency declaring that the right of any person to move the court for any enforcement of the
right given by Art. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and all proceeding pending in any
court for the enforcement of the rights shall remain suspended for the period during the period
of emergency. Supreme Court said in the view of the presidential order dated June 27th, 1975
no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under article 226 before a high court
8
for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of
detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or The 44th
Amendment of the constitution brought several changes. Under Art. 352 of the Constitution of
India which used to get suspended by the proclamation of emergency will not get suspended if
the ground of emergency is only armed rebellion and not war or external aggression. Right to
life and personal liberty under Art 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be suspended
during emergency. It was also said that the Cabinet must communicate the decision of
proclamation of emergency in writing. The proclamation of emergency must be approved by
the houses within one month and to continue the emergency it must be re approved by the
houses every six months. The emergency can be revoked by the houses by passing a resolution
by the 1/10 member of a house. The term of the Lok Sabha was reversed back from6 years to 5
years. In the case of M M Pathak vs Union of India196 a settlement between LIC and its
employees was made to pay cash bonus to the employees. But during 1977 the LIC Act, 1976
passed by the parliament during emergency has made the settlement ineffective. The employees
who could not get their cash bonuses challenged the validity of the act. The Supreme Court
held that the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Art 14 to 19 of the Constitution of India are
not suspended during emergency but their operation is suspended. As soon as the emergency is
over, the rights can be enforced. The employees will get their bonuses when the emergency will
get over and their rights can be enforced. The law which is not related to emergency can be
challenged in the court during emergency.
2. EMERGENCY AND ARREST OF LEADERS

Invoking article 352 of the Indian Constitution, Gandhi granted herself extraordinary powers
and launched a massive crackdown on civil liberties and political opposition. The Government
used police forces across the country to place thousands of protestors and strike leaders under
preventive detention. Vijayaraje Scindia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Raj Narain, Morarji
Desai, Charan Singh, Jivatram Kripalani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Arun
Jaitley, Satyendra Narayan Sinha, Gayatri Devi, the dowager queen of Jaipur and other protest
leaders were immediately arrested. Organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
and Jamaat-e-Islami along with some political parties were banned. Numerous Communist
leaders were arrested along with many others involved with their party. Congress leaders who
dissented the Emergency declaration and amendment to the constitution such as Mohan

9
Dhariaand Chandra Shekhar resigned their government and party positions and were arrested
and placed under detention.3

In Tamil Nadu, the M. Karunanidhi government was dissolved and the leaders of the DMK
were incarcerated. In particular, Karunanidhi's son M. K. Stalin, was arrested under
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. At least nine High Courts pronounced that even after
the declaration of an emergency, a person could challenge his detention. The Supreme Court,
now under the Indira Gandhi-appointed Chief Justice A. N. Ray, over-ruled all of them,
upholding the state's plea for power to detain a person without the necessity of informing him of
the reasons/grounds of his arrest, or to suspend his personal liberties, or to deprive him of his
right to life, in an absolute manner (the habeas corpus case') Many political workers who were
not arrested in the first wave, went 'underground' continuing organising protests.]

3. LAWS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND ELECTION

Elections for the Parliament and state governments were postponed. Gandhi and her
parliamentary majorities could rewrite the nation's laws, since her Congress party had the
required mandate to do so a two-thirds majority in the Parliament. And when she felt the
existing laws were 'too slow', she got the President to issue 'Ordinances' a law-making power
in times of urgency, invoked sparingly completely bypassing the Parliament, allowing her
to rule by decree. Also, she had little trouble amending the Constitution that exonerated her
from any culpability in her election-fraud case, imposing President's Rule in Gujarat and Tamil
Nadu, where anti-Indira parties ruled (state legislatures were thereby dissolved and suspended
indefinitely), and jailing thousands of opponents. The 42nd Amendment, which brought about
extensive changes to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, is one of the lasting legacies of the
Emergency. In the conclusion of his Making of India's Constitution, Justice Khanna writes:

If the Indian constitution is our heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, no less
are we, the people of India, the trustees and custodians of the values which pulsate within its
provisions! A constitution is not a parchment of paper, it is a way of life and has to be lived up
to. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and in the final analysis, its only keepers are the
people. Imbecility of men, history teaches us, always invites the impudence of power."

A fallout of the Emergency era was the Supreme Court laid down that, although the
Constitution is amenable to amendments (as abused by Indira Gandhi), changes that tinker
with its basic structure cannot be made by the Parliament. (see Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala)

3
Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 320.
10
 In the Rajan case, P. Rajan of the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, was arrested
by the police in Kerala on 1 March 1976,[28] tortured in custody until he died and then
his body was disposed of and was never recovered. The facts of this incident came out
owing to a habeas corpus suit filed in the Kerala High Court.

4. FORCED STERILIZATION

In September 1976, Sanjay Gandhi initiated a widespread compulsory sterilisation program to

limit population growth. The exact extent of Sanjay Gandhi's role in the implementation of the
program is somewhat disputed, with some writers holding Gandhi directly responsible for his
authoritarianism, and other writers blaming the officials who implemented the program rather
than Gandhi himself. Rukhsana Sultana was a socialite known for being one of Sanjay Gandhi's
close associates and she gained a lot of notoriety in leading Sanjay Gandhi's sterilization
campaign in Muslim areas of old Delhi. The campaign primarily involved getting males to
undergo vasectomy. Quotas were set up that enthusiastic supporters and government officials
worked hard to achieve. There were allegations of coercion of unwilling candidates too. In
19761977, the program counted 8.3 million sterilizations, most of them forced, up from 2.7
million the previous year. The bad publicity led every government since 1977 to stress that
family planning is an entirely voluntary program.

Kartar, a cobbler, was taken to a Block Development Officer (BDO) by six policemen,
where he was asked how many children he had. He was forcefully taken for sterilization in
a jeep. En route, the police forced a man on the bicycle into the jeep because he was not
sterilized. Kartar had an infection and pain because of the procedure and could not work for
months.
Shahu Ghalake, a peasant from Barsi in Maharashtra, was taken for sterilization. After
mentioning the fact that he was already sterilized, he was beaten. He was sterilized for the
second time.
Hawa Singh, a young widower, from Pipli was taken from the bus against his will and
sterilized. The infection took his life.
Harijan, a 70-year-old with no teeth and bad eyesight, was sterilized forcefully.

11
 Uttawar, a village 80 kilometers south of Delhi, woke up to the police loudspeakers at 3
a.m. Police gathered 400 men at the bus stop. In the process of finding more villagers,
police broke into homes and looted. Total of 800 forced sterilizations were done. 4
In Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, on 18 October 1976, police picked up 17 people, nine
Hindu and eight Muslims out of which two were over 75 and two under 18. Hundreds of
Hindus and Muslims surrounded the police station demanding to free captives. The police
refused to release them and used tear gas shells. Crowd retaliated by throwing stones and to
control the situation, the police fired on the crowd. 30 people died as a result. 5

4
"Cong blames Sanjay Gandhi for Emergency 'excesses'". Retrieved 1 August 2013.
5
Carl Haub and O. P. Sharma, "India's Population Reality: Reconciling Change and Tradition," Population Bulletin (2006)
12
 Chapter 3
Controversies regarding Emergency

Emergency is one of the most controversial episodes in Indian politics. One reason is that there
are differing view points about the need to declare emergency. Another reason is that using the
powers given by
the Constitution, the government practically suspended the democratic functioning. As the
investigations by the Shah Commission after the emergency found out, there were many
excesses committed during the emergency. Finally, there are varying assessments of what the
lessons of emergency are for the practice of democracy in India. Let us look at these one by
one.

1. Was the Emergency necessary?

The Constitution simply mentioned internal disturbances as the reason for declaring
emergency. Before 1975, emergency was never proclaimed on this ground. Was this reason
enough for declaring emergency? The government argued that in a democracy, the opposition
parties must allow the elected ruling party to govern according to its policies. It felt that
frequent recourse to agitations, protests and collective action are not good for democracy.
Supporters of Indira Gandhi also held that in a democracy, you cannot continuously have extra-
parliamentary politics targeting the government. This leads to instability and distracts the
administration from its routine task of ensuring development. All energies are diverted to
maintenance of law and order. Indira Gandhi wrote in a letter to the Shah Commission that
subversive forces were trying to obstruct the progressive programmes of the government and
were attempting to dislodge her from power through extra-constitutional means. Some other
parties, like the CPI that continued to back the Congress during the Emergency, also believed
that there was an international conspiracy against the unity of India. It believed that in such
circumstances some restrictions on agitations were justified.
The CPI felt that the agitations led by JP were mainly by the middle classes who were opposed
to the radical policies of the Congress party. After the emergency, the CPI felt that its
assessment was mistaken and that it was an error to have supported the Emergency. On the
other hand, the critics of the Emergency argued that ever since the freedom movement, Indian
politics had a history of popular struggles. JP and many other opposition leaders felt that in a
democracy, people had the right to publicly protest against the government. The Bihar and
Gujarat agitations were mostly peaceful and non-violent.
13
Those who were arrested were never tried for any anti-national activity. No cases were
registered against most of the detainees. The Home Ministry, which is entrusted with the
responsibility of monitoring the internal situation of the country, also did not express any
concern about the law and order situation in the country. If some agitations had over-stepped
their limits, the government had enough routine powers to deal with it. There was no need to
suspend democratic functioning and use draconian measures like the Emergency for that. The
threat was not to the unity and integrity of the country but to the ruling party and to the Prime
Minister herself. The critics say that Indira Gandhi misused a constitutional provision meant for
saving the country to save her personal power.

2. What happened during emergency?

The actual implementation of the Emergency is another contentious issue. Did the government
misuse its Emergency powers? Were there excesses and abuse of authority? The government
said that it wanted to use the Emergency to bring law and order, restore efficiency, and
above all, implement the pro-poor welfare programmes. For this purpose, the government led
by Indira Gandhi announced a twenty point programme and declared its determination to
implement this programme. The twenty-point programme included land reforms, land
redistribution, review of agricultural wages, workers participation in management, eradication
of bonded labour, etc. In the initial months after the declaration of emergency, the urban middle
classes were generally happy over the fact that agitations came to an end and discipline was
enforced on the government employees. The poor and rural people also expected effective
implementation of the welfare programmes that the government was promising. Thus, different
sections of society had different expectations from the emergency and also different viewpoints
about it. Critics of Emergency point out that most of these promises by the government
remained unfulfilled, that these were simply meant to divert attention from the excesses that
were taking place. They question the use of preventive detention on such a large scale. We have
noted that many prominent political leaders were arrested. In all, 676 opposition leaders were
arrested. The Shah Commission estimated that nearly one lakh eleven thousand people were
arrested under preventive detention laws. Severe restrictions were put on the press,
sometimes without proper legal sanctions. The Shah Commission report mentions that the
General Manager of the Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the office
of the Lt. Governor of Delhi to cut electricity to all newspaper presses at 2.00 a.m. on 26

14
June, 1975. Electricity was restored two to three days later after the censorship apparatus had
been set upThere were other and more serious allegations regarding the exercise of
governmental power by people who held no official position. Sanjay Gandhi, the Prime
Ministers younger son, did not hold any official position at the time. Yet, he gained control
over the administration and allegedly interfered in the functioning of the government. His role
in the demolitions and forced sterilisation in Delhi became very controversial. Apart from the
arrests of political workers and the restrictions on the press, the Emergency directly affected
lives of common people in many cases. Torture and custodial deaths occurred during the
Emergency; arbitrary relocation of poor people also took place; and over-enthusiasm about
population control led to cases of compulsory sterilisation. These instances show what happens
when the normal democratic process is suspended.

15
 Chapter 4
Politics after Emergency
The most valuable and lasting lesson of the Emergency was learnt as soon as the Emergency
was over and the Lok Sabha elections were announced. The 1977 elections turned into a
referendum on the experience of the Emergency, at least in north India where the impact
of the Emergency was felt most strongly. The opposition fought the election on the slogan of
save democracy. The peoples verdict was decisively against the Emergency. The lesson was
clear and has been reiterated in many state level elections thereafter governments that
are perceived to be anti-democratic are severely punished by the voters. In this sense the
experience of 1975 -77 ended up strengthening the foundations of democracy in India.
1.Lok Sabha Elections, 1977
In January 1977, after eighteen months of emergency, the government decided to hold
elections. Accordingly, all the leaders and activists were released from jails. Elections were held
in March 1977. This left the opposition with very little time, but political developments took
place very rapidly. The major opposition parties had already been coming closer in the pre-
Emergency period. Now they came together on theeve of the elections and formed a new party,
known as the Janata Party. The new party accepted the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan.
Some leaders of the Congress who were opposed to the emergency also joined this new party.
Some other Congress leaders also came out and formed a separate party under the leadership of
Jagjivan Ram. This party named as Congress for Democracy, later merged with the Janata
Party. The Janata Party made this election into a referendum on the Emergency. Its campaign
was focused on the nondemocratic character of the rule and on the various excesses that took
place during this period. In the backdrop of arrests of thousands of persons and the censorship
of the Press, the public opinion was against the Congress. Jayaprakash Narayan became the
popular symbol of restoration of democracy. The formation of the Janata Party also ensured
that non-Congress votes would not be divided. It was evident that the going was tough for the
Congress.
Yet the final results took everyone by surprise. For the first time since independence, the
Congress party was defeated in the Lok Sabha elections. The Congress could
win only 154 seats in the Lok Sabha. Its share of popular votes fell to less than 35 per cent. The
Janata Party and its allies won 330 out of the 542 seats in the Lok Sabha; Janata Party itself won
295 seats and thus enjoyed a clear majority. In north India, it was a massive electoral wave

16
against the Congress. The Congress lost in every constituency in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi,
Haryana and the Punjab and could win only one seat each in Rajasthan and Madhya
Pradesh. Indira Gandhi was defeated from Rae Bareli, as was her son Sanjay Gandhi from
Amethi.
But looking at the map showing the result of this election, you will notice that Congress did not
lose elections all over the country.It retained many seats in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Orissa and
virtually swept through the southern States. There are many reasons for this. To begin with, the
impact of emergency was not felt equally in all the States. The forced relocation and
displacements, the forced sterilisations, were mostly concentrated in the northern States.
But more importantly, north India had experienced some long term changes in the nature of
political competition. The middle castes from north India were beginning to move away from
the Congress and the Janata party became a platform for many of these sections to come
together. In this sense, the elections of 1977 were not merely about the Emergency.6

2.Janata Government
The Janata Party government that came to power after the 1977 elections was far from cohesive.
After the election, there was stiff competition among three leaders for the post of Prime
Minister Morarji Desai, whowas the rival to Indira Gandhi ever since 1966-67; Charan Singh,
leader of the Bharatiya Lok Dal and a farmers leader from UP; and Jagjivan Ram, who had
vast experience as a senior minister in the Congress governments. Eventually Morarji Desai
became the Prime Minister but that did not bring the power struggle within the party to an end.
The opposition to emergency could keep the Janata Party together only for a while. Its critics
felt that the Janata Party lacked direction, leadership, and a common programme. The Janata
Party government could not bring about a fundamental change in policies from those
pursued by the Congress. The Janata Party split and the government which was led by Morarji
Desai lost its majority in less than 18 months. Another government headed by Charan Singh
was formed on the assurance of the support of the Congress party. But the Congress
party later decided to withdraw its support with the result that the Charan Singh government
could remain in power for just about four months. Fresh Lok Sabha elections were held in
January 1980 in which the Janata Party suffered a comprehensive defeat, especially in
north India where it had swept the polls in 1977.

6
NCERT Text Book For Political Science on Emergency (p.112)
17
Congress party led by Indira Gandhi nearly repeated its great victory in 1971. It won 353 seats
and came back to power. The experience of 1977-79 taught another lesson in democratic
politics: governments that are seen to be unstable and quarrelsome are severely punished
by the voters.7

3.Legacy
But was it only a case of return of Indira Gandhi? Between the elections of 1977 and 1980 the
party system had changed dramatically. Since 1969, the Congress party had starting shedding
its character as an umbrella party which accommodated leaders and workers of different
ideological dispensations and view points. The Congress party now identified itself with a
particular ideology, claiming to be the only socialist and pro-poor party. Thus with the early
nineteen seventies, the Congresss political success depended on attracting people on the basis
of sharp social and ideological divisions and the appeal of one leader, Indira Gandhi. With the
change in the nature of the Congress party, other opposition parties relied more and more on
what is known in Indian politics as non-Congressism. They also realised the need to avoid a
division of non-Congress votes in the election. This factor played a major role in the elections
of 1977.
In an indirect manner the issue of welfare of the backward castes also began to dominate
politics since 1977. As we saw above, the results of 1977 elections were at least partly due to
a shift among the backward castes of north India. Following the Lok Sabha elections, many
states also held Assembly elections in 1977. Again, the northern States elected non-Congress
governments in which the leaders of the backward castes playedan important role. The issue of
reservations for other backward classes became very controversial in Bihar and following this,
the Mandal Commission was appointed by the Janata party government at the centre. You will
read more about this and about the role of the politics of backward castes, in the last chapter.
The elections after the emergency set off the process of this change in the party system. The
Emergency and the period around it can be described as a period of constitutional crisis because
it had its origins in the constitutional battle over the jurisdiction of the Parliament and the
judiciary. On the other hand, it was also a period of political crisis. The party in power
had absolute majority and yet, its leadership decided to suspendthe democratic process. The
makers of Indias Constitution trusted that all political parties would basically abide
by the democratic norm. Even during the emergency, when the government

7
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, "The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty," Journal of Democracy (2007)
18
would use extraordinary powers, its use would be within the norms of the rule of law. This
expectation led to the wide and open ended powers given to the government in times of
emergency. These were abused during the Emergency. This political crisis was more serious
than the constitutional crisis. Another critical issue that emerged during this period was the role
and extent of mass protests in a parliamentary democracy. There was clearly a tension between
institution-based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation.

19
 Concluding Observation

To conclude, Emergency was one of the important event that had taken place in Indian Political History.
An attempt made by the Indira Gandhi to shake the democracy of India was rejected by the Indian Voters
in later Election. It also The Emergency at once brought out both the weaknesses and the strengths
of Indias democracy. Though there are many observers who think that India ceased to be
democratic during the Emergency, it is noteworthy that normal democratic functioning resumed
within a short span of time. Thus, one lesson of Emergency is that it is extremely difficult to do
away with democracy in India. Secondly, it brought out some ambiguities regarding the
Emergency provision in the Constitution that have been rectified since. Now, internal
emergency can be proclaimed only on the grounds of armed rebellion and it is necessary that
the advice to the President to proclaim emergency must be given in writing by the Council of
Ministers.
Thirdly, the Emergency made everyone more aware of the value of civil liberties. The Courts
too, have taken an active role after the emergency in protecting the civil liberties of the
individuals. This is a response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil liberties effectively
during the emergency. Many civil liberties organisations came up after this experience.
However, the critical years of emergency brought many
issues that have not been adequately grappled with. We have noted in this chapter that there is a
tension between routine functioning of a democratic government and the continuous political
protests by parties and groups. What is the correct balance between the two? Should the citizens
have full freedom to engage in protest activity or should they have no such right at all? What are
the limits to such a protest?
Secondly, the actual implementation of the emergency rule took place through the police and the
administration. These institutions could not function independently. They were turned into
political
Instruments of the ruling party and according to the Shah Commission Report, the
administration and the police became vulnerable to political pressures. This problem did not
vanish after the Emergency.

20
 Reference
: A Comparative Critique, vol 8.1 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF
COMPARATIVE LAW, (March 2004),
The Guardian
Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press
Carl Haub and O. P. Sharma, "India's Population Reality: Reconciling Change
and Tradition,"
The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty," Journal of Democracy

..