INDIRA GANDHI VS.

RAJ NARAIN1

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.

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.

1
AIR 1590, 1975 SCC (2) 159
ADM JABALPUR v. SHIVKANT SHUKLA2

It all began by a judgment delivered on June 12, 1975 by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the
Allahabad High Court. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain, the petitioner challenged Indira
Gandhi’s election to the Lok Sabha and consequent victory from the Rae Barelli constituency in
Uttar Pradesh. On June 12, Justice Sinha convicted the then Prime Minister, of having indulged
in corrupt practices and declared her election invalid, which meant she could not contest
elections or hold office for six years. Her appeal to the Supreme Court only granted her a
conditional stay. She could not vote or speak in the Lok Sabha rendering her dysfunctional.
Upon increasing hostility by the opposition and in desperation to hold on to the chair of the PM,
she requested the President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a state of emergency under clause
(1) of Article 352 of the Indian Constitution which he did so obediently on June 26 1975. The
government cited ‘a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by
internal disturbances’. The war with Pakistan that had just ended (1971) and the drought (1972)
were said to have damaged the economy greatly and paralyzed the nation. On June 27 1975, the
exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 359 of the Indian constitution were
enforced, within which the right of any person including a foreigner to move to the court to
enforce Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 and Article 22 (prevention against detention in
certain cases) of the Constitution and all the proceedings pending in any court concerned with
the enforcement of the aforementioned articles will remain suspended for the period of
Emergency.
What ensued was a string of illegal and hasty detentions without charge or trial, including those
of the major leaders of the opposition party such as Moraji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
Jayprakash Narayan and L.K.Advani under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Preventive
Detention Law (MISA). Consequently several writ petitions were filed all over the country.
Records show that nine High Courts ruled in favour of the petitioners stating that even though
Article 21 was not enforceable, a person could still demonstrate that their detention was not in
compliance of the law under which they were detained, or that the action by the State was mala
fide or that it was a case of mistaken identity. Highly perturbed the government decided to

2
AIR 1976 SC 1207, 1976 SCR 172
appeal against these decision in the Supreme Court, which became what is called the Additional
District Manager of Jabalpur vs. Shiv Kant Shukla case or the Habeas Corpus case.

The main question of the case was whether, under Presidential Orders the High Court could
entertain a writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a person challenging the ground for his detention. The
arguments in Supreme Court began on December 14 1975, before a bench consisting of Chief
Justice of India A.N. Ray, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud
and Justice P.N. Bhagwati. They were considered the most respectable and wise judges of the
Supreme Court at that time.  The Attorney General of India, Niren De began his arguments in his
powerful voice, almost terrorising the court, much like the Government’s rule at that time. No
questions were asked until Justice Khanna asked, ‘Life is also mentioned in Article 21. Would
Government arguments extend to it also?’ Niren De didn’t seem to be hassled by this rather
uncomfortable question and answered swiftly saying, ‘‘Even if life was taken away illegally,
courts are helpless’.3

The case was argued for over two months after which judgement was reserved. It was only after
an application was moved for the pronouncement of judgement that the Supreme Court came out
with the following conclusion:

“In view of the Presidential Order dated 27th June 1975 no person has any locus to move any
writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court 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 is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is
based on extraneous considerations.”

The judgement ruled in favour of the Government with a four to one majority. Only Justice
Khanna, had the courage to take the right decision in favour of human nature and liberty. He
knew what was as stake. Records state that the night before the judgement was announced he
told his sister that he had made up his mind and decision and knew that it would cost him the seat
of the Chief Justice of India. He ended his judgment with a strong worded quote: ‘”As observed

3
http://indiaopines.com/a-d-m-jabalpur-shukla-emergency-1975-77/
by Chief Justice Huges, Judges are not there simply to decide cases, but to decide them as they
think they should be decided, and while it may be regrettable that they cannot always agree, it is
better that their independence should be maintained and recognized than that unanimity should
be secured through its sacrifice. A dissent in a Court of last resort is appeals to the brooding
spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possible correct
the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.” He knew
what the consequences of his actions were to be. His junior, Justice M.H. Beg superseded him
and became the Chief Justice of India in his stead.

The four others: CJI A.N.Ray, Justice Beg, Justice Chandrachudh and Justice Bhagwati could
not stop themselves from blatantly favouring the Government in power. A.N. Ray, with his
controversial appointment as CJI by Indira Gandhi, superseding three senior judges in line,
worshipped the very ground she walked on.  There are anecdotes narrated of how she used to
telephone her and her personal secretary quite frequently to take advice even on the smallest of
matters. Justice Bhagwati, held up the torch of personal liberty only to dampen it with the
diplomacy of the correct reading of the Constitution.  Courtroom records read as him saying: “I
have always leaned in favour of upholding personal liberty, for, I believe, it is one of the most
cherished values of mankind, without it life would not be worth living. It is one of the pillars of
free democratic society. Men have readily laid down their lives at its altar, in order to secure it,
protect it and preserve it. But I do not think it would be right for me to allow my love of personal
liberty to cloud my vision or to persuade me to place on the relevant provision of the
Constitution a construction which its language cannot reasonably bear.”4

In 1979, after Indira Gandhi’s rise to power once again he wrote a letter to her that we all wish
he didn’t. It read as ‘I am sure that with your iron will and firm determination, uncanny insight
and dynamic vision, great administrative capacity and vast experience, overwhelming love and
affection of the people and above all, a heart which is identified with the misery of the poor and
the weak, you will be able to steer the ship of the nation safely to its cherished goal.’ He went on
to become Chief Justice of India.
The High Court quietly compiled. Their senior had silenced them. That day has been referred to
4
http://indiaopines.com/a-d-m-jabalpur-shukla-emergency-1975-77/
as the ‘blackest day in Indian Democracy’ and rightly so. There are several similarities between
this judgement and Hitler’s way of functioning and his rise to power. The Proclamation of
Emergency upon the request of Indira Gandhi bestowed upon her to rule by decree, suspend
elections and curd fundamental rights. The most significant example in history of a ‘rule by
decree’ is the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933. Adolf Hitler convinced German President
Hindenburg to issue a decree to suspend all basic civil rights indefinitely. This is what paved the
way for the consequent Nazi suppression of its opposition and the one-party rule of the Third
Reich. Niren De’s straight faced and calm answer to Justice Khanna’s uncomfortable question
chimes of the Nazi holocaust. In one instance, CJI Ray went on to almost scold the counsel for
the people detained who brought up Nazi gas chambers to prove their point. To everyone else
except him, this was nothing but an act of desperation and defensiveness to keep the façade of
‘righteousness’ on.
The Supreme Court violated all fundamental rights with that decision. It was the darkest hour of
Indian judiciary which struck at the very heart of fundamental rights. All four judges with the
exception of Justice Khanna went on to become Chief Justices of India. In 2011, Justice
Bhagwati expressed regret by saying:

“I was wrong. The majority judgment was not the correct judgment. If it was open to me to come
to a fresh decision in that case, I would agree with what Justice Khanna did. I am sorry. I don’t
know why I yielded to my colleagues. Initially, I was not in favour of the majority view. But
ultimately, I don’t know why, I was persuaded to agree with them. I was a novice at that time, a
young judge…I was handling this type of litigation for the first time. But it was an act of
weakness on my part.”5

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1018568/
 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is fitting to say that the emergency of 1975 was far more complex a
situation than can be judged purely on the basis of the personality of a couple of
people or the occurrences of a short period of time. In the same manner, it is also
true that its effects belie listing for they are diverse and numerous. The emergency came in a
period when the existence of democracy in India was at stake. People were ready to live in
an authoritarian set up just to get back the peace and security that went missing at
some point in free Indian history. Yet democracy survived. And, ironically, post the emergency
of 1975, the questions of a presidential form of government or the wish for an
authoritarian government have not arisen. Whether the emergency precipitated a control centre at
Delhi or was the effect of such a centre is an arguable topic. While many
b e l i e v e t h a t t h e emergency was the culmination of power building at the centre, another
school of thought stands convinced that the power to the centre was only solidified by the
emergency. The separation of powers was certainly powerfully hit by the emergency
period. The indiscriminate supersession of judges, nonsensical judicial decisions in favour of
those in power reeks strongly of the concept of a ‘committed judiciary’. Similarly, the
executive becoming a pawn in the hands of those in power seems to be highlighted
by the frenzy with which Sanjay Gandhi’s slum demolition and sterility drives were carried
out without a single question asked. Another long term effect that India has suffered
because of is coalition politics. Successive governments have been formed by resorting to
coalitions that often show no ideological cohesion and therefore give rise to difficulties in
making coherent policies. The then head of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, P. N. Dhar
makes an apt conclusion.
“Notwithstanding the economic gains of the period, the Emergency regime did not
succeed in bringing about the much-needed reform in economic policies. Neither did it bring
about changes in political practice that would have made the restoration of
democracy possible on a more v i a b l e b a s i s . T h e g r o u p t h a t h a d g a i n e d
c l o s e s t p r o x i m i t y t o t h e p r i m e m i n i s t e r d u r i n g t h e   Emergency was more
interested in the exercise of power for personal aggrandisement than for   larger
political and social ends. Without a clear sense of direction in which to take the country, they
converted the regime into a personal despotism of rule by sycophants.”
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:
 P. N. Dhar, “Indira Gandhi, the ‘Emergency’, and Indian Democracy”, Oxford
University Press, Delhi, 1st Edition (2000)

 Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee & Aditya Mukherjee, “India After

 Granville Austin, “Working a Democratic Constitution”, Oxford University Press, New

 Ramachandra Guha, “INDIA AFTER GANDHI – The History of the World’s Largest

ARTICLES:

 Balraj Puri “A Fuller View of the Emergency” in Economic and Political Weekly Vol.
30 No. 28 (Jul. 15, 1995) pp. 1736-1744.

 Balraj Puri “Afterthoughts on the Emergency Debate” in  Economic and Political Weekly
Vol. 35 No. 33 (Aug. 12-18, 2000) pp. 2913-2914

 V. A. Pai Panandiker and P. K. Umashankar “Fertility Control and Politics in India” in

 Harry W. Blair “Mrs Gandhi's Emergency, The Indian Elections of 1977, Pluralism
andMarxism: Problems with Paradigms” in Modern Asian Studies Vol. 14 No. 2
(1980) pp.237-271
  Norman D. Palmer “India in 1975: Democracy in Eclipse” in  Asian Survey Vol. 16 No.
2A Survey of Asia in 1975: Part II (Feb., 1976), pp. 95-110

 Sudipta Kaviraj “Indira Gandhi and Indian Politics” in Economic and Political Weekly

 Aaron S. Klieman “Indira's India: Democracy and Crisis Government
”   i n Political Science Quarterly Vol. 96 No. 2 (Summer, 1981) pp. 241-259

 Arvind Rajagopal “Sangh's Role in the Emergency” in Economic and Political

 Oliver Mendelsohn “The Collapse of the Indian National Congress” in  Pacific

 Krishna K. Tummala “The Indian Union and Emergency Powers” in
International   Political Science Review Vol.17 No. 4 New Trends in Federalism
(Oct., 1996) pp.373-384

Websites:

 https://www.scribd.com/document/66235273/The-Emergency-of-1975
 http://indiaopines.com/a-d-m-jabalpur-shukla-emergency-1975-77/
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1850059/
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1018568/
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Emergency_in_India
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act