Emergency Provisions In The Indian Constitution: A Study Of The “Internal Disturbance” Of 1975 By - J.NISSHA
Emergency Provisions In The Indian
Constitution: A Study Of The “Internal Disturbance” Of 1975
Authored By - J.NISSHA
1.INTRODUCTION
In India, democracy is at the center
of government. However, democracy's operation has revealed a number of flaws.
The civil service, legislature, and political authorities all have weak
accountability chains; Poor implementation occurs at higher levels of
administration; and a component of the issue is the lack of oversight provided
by Parliamentary committees. As a result, accountable political leadership,
well-informed policymaking, and a civil service with a professional ethos are
all components of good governance. Good governance starts with a strong civil
society that includes a free press and an independent judiciary. On the advice
of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared a
state of emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution from June 25,
1975, to March 21, 1977. This effectively gave Indira Gandhi the authority to
rule by decree, suspending elections and civil liberties. Indian politics took
a dramatic turn at this point. All of the fundamental rights and legal remedies
guaranteed by the Republic of India's Constitution were suspended, putting an
end to democracy.
Indira Gandhi attempted to justify
the emergency by claiming that she was protecting the Indian people and the
state. Despite this, her emergency rule was widely criticized and is without a
doubt one of the most contentious periods in Independent India's political
history. According to the Supreme Court, "civil liberties were withdrawn
to a great extent;" it witnessed the temporary end of democracy in our
nation. People's important fundamental rights were taken away; Press freedom
was severely restricted; and judicial authority was significantly
restricted."
1. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS IN THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
The Indian Constitution provides an
in-depth understanding of the entire structure of the government, the
fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizens, and special provisions.
The Indian constitution contains a total of 395 articles. The Indian
Constitution's Emergency and Special Provisions are contained in the
Constitution, which was enacted on January 26, 1950. Part XVI contains special
provisions pertaining to particular classes. Emergency Provisions are also
covered in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution.
1.1
NATIONAL EMERGENCY
War, external aggression, or armed
rebellion in India or a portion of its territory can lead to a national
emergency. According to Article 352 of the India Constitution, the President
can only declare such an emergency on the basis of a written request from the
Cabinet Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. This emergency was declared in
India in 1962 (due to the Indo-China war), 1971 (due to the Indo-Pakistan war[1]),
and 1975 to 1977 (due to "internal disturbance"). Within a month,
Parliament must approve such a proclamation. This kind of emergency can last
for six months. Repeated approval from the parliamentary body is required to
extend it by six months, up to a maximum of three years.
Indian citizens' Fundamental Rights
may be suspended in such an emergency. Right to Freedom's six freedoms are
automatically halted. However, Article 21 states that the Right to Life and
Personal Liberty cannot be suspended.
The 66 topics on the State
List—topics on which state governments can pass laws—can be enacted by the
President. Additionally, the President is requested to approve each and every
money bill. The Lok Sabha's term can be extended by up to one year, but
Parliament's term cannot be extended beyond six months after the declared
emergency ends.
1.2
STATE EMERGENCY
If the President is satisfied, based
on the report of the Governor of the concerned state[2] or
from other sources, that the governance in a state cannot be carried out in
accordance with the provisions in the Constitution, he or she can declare a
state of emergency in the state. This situation is also known as President's
rule. Within a period of two months, the Parliament must approve such an
emergency. It can be imposed for as little as six months up to a maximum of
three years under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution with parliamentary
approval every six months. A constitutional amendment can be used to extend the
emergency for more than three years, as has been done in Punjab and Jammu and
Kashmir.
In such an emergency, the Governor
administers the state on behalf of the President, and the President can take
over all executive functions. The Legislative Assembly has the option of
dissolving or remaining inactive. The 66 subjects on the state list are enacted
by Parliament. The Parliament is required to approve all money bills.
The following ways can be used to
declare a State of Emergency:
1. According to Article 356, the state's
constitutional machinery has failed if it fails [3]to
operate in accordance with the Constitution.
2. By Article 365: If that state is not
acting in accordance with the Union Government's instructions[4].
1.3
FINANCIAL EMERGENCY
According to Article 360 of the
Constitution, the President has the authority to declare a financial emergency
if he or she is satisfied that an economic situation exists in which India's
credit or financial stability are in jeopardy. Within two months, the
Parliament must approve this emergency. It hasn't been said at all.
In the event of a financial
emergency, the President can reduce the salaries of all government officials,
including Supreme Court and High Court judges. The President is asked to
approve every money bill that the State legislatures pass. They are able to
direct the state to adhere to specific financial principles (economy measures).
1.4
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DURING PERIODS OF EMERGENCY
It's one thing to talk about how the
doctrine of separation of powers is used in normal governance, but it's quite
another to look at it in the context of a national emergency. Because many of
the checks and balances are off during this time, it is much more likely that
any organ will try to exceed its power. However, it is generally agreed that
the doctrine must remain in effect even during an emergency.
In the case of Rameshwar Prasad v.
State of Bihar[5], this
scenario was up for discussion, and the Court was asked to decide whether the
imposition of Art. 356 in the state without properly consulting state officials
or taking into account the Governor's report is an excessive use of legislative
power. In the present case, the Court determined that the separation of powers
doctrine had been clearly violated due to the Central Legislature's attempt to
usurp the State Legislature's role and complete control.
2. THE PROCLAMATION OF 1975
The Indian Emergency, which lasted
from June 26, 1975, to March 21, 1977, was a 21-month period in which Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi asked President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare a state
of emergency in accordance with Article 352 of the Indian Constitution. This
effectively gave Indira Gandhi the power to rule by decree, suspending
elections and civil liberties. Alok Narayan, a well-known law scholar, referred
to it as one of India's "blackest hours." It was one of the most
contentious periods in the independent India's history.[6]
2.1. ALLAHABAD
CONVICTION
Raj Narain, a socialist who lost to
Indira Gandhi by a two-to-one margin in Uttar Pradesh's Rae Bareilly
parliamentary constituency, filed charges of corruption in the election process
against Mrs. Gandhi with the Allahabad High Court. Jayaprakash Narayan, an
ex-socialist congressman, began organizing a campaign in Bihar in 1974 to
remove Indira Gandhi and her congress party from office on corruption charges.
The Prime Minister was found guilty on June 12, 1975, by Justice Jagmohanlal
Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, of using government machinery for her
election campaign.[7] The
court declared her election "null and void" and removed her from the
Lok Sabha. She was also barred from participating in any election for an
additional six years by the court. She was found guilty of relatively minor
charges, such as the construction of a dais by the state police, the provision
of electricity by the state electricity department, and the height of the dais
from which she addressed the campaign rally. Additionally, some serious
charges, such as bribing voters and election malpractices, were dropped. In
point of fact, some of these charges were necessary for the Prime Minister's
Security protocol. As a result of her misbehavior as a government employee, she
was also held accountable. The Times of India referred to it as "firing
the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket" because the court removed her
from office despite her being cleared of more serious charges. "[8]
Government unions, student unions, and labor and trade unions all went on
strike across the country.[9]
Protests led by Raj Narayan and Moraji Desai flooded the streets of Delhi near
the Parliament building and the residence of the Prime Minister.
2.2. DECLARATION OF
EMERGENCY
The Congress party was able to elect
a Prime Minister's successor thanks to Justice Sinha's 20-day stay of his
judgment. Mrs. Gandhi filed an appeal on June 23, 1975, for a "complete
and absolute" stay, which would have allowed her to serve as Prime
Minister and a voting Member of Parliament. “Conditional stay” was granted to
Indira Gandhi on June 24, 1975, by Justice Iyer. The opposition cried out that
she ought to resign as a result of this decision. Mrs. Gandhi didn't walk away.
JP Narayan called for a civil disobedience campaign to get the Prime Minister
to resign in the evening of June 25, 1975. In response, more than a hundred
individuals opposed to Mrs. Gandhi and her party were arrested in the early
hours of June 26 under the authority of the Maintenance of Internal Security
Act. JP Narayan, Raj Narain, Jyortimoy Basu (Communist Party Marxist), and
Samar Guha (President of the Jana Sangha) were among those arrested.
On June 26, 1975, she advised
President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, a "rubber-stamp" appointee who she
had previously been elected to, to declare a State of Emergency. Ms. Gandhi, in
her own words, brought democracy "to a grinding halt." Article 352 of
the Indian Constitution gave the authority to call an emergency. When the
President is satisfied that war, agression from the outside, or internal unrest
has posed a threat to India's security, he may declare an emergency. In
addition, the Courts are prohibited from examining the legitimacy of the
emergency's justifications under Article 352. Under this type of emergency, the
Central Government has virtually limitless authority. Ms. Gandhi advised and
President Ahmed authorized the continuation of the Emergency every six months
in accordance with the constitution up until her decision to hold elections in
1977.
3.ONSLAUGHT THROUGHOUT 1975-1977
Indeed, one of India's darkest
periods can be traced back to June 26, 1975, when the country's then-president,
Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, under heavy pressure from Prime Minister Mrs. Indira
Gandhi, declared an "emergency" in accordance with article 352 of the
country's constitution. This provision gives the president the authority to
declare an emergency if he is satisfied that the security of India or any part
of it is threatened by war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. Just
recently, the world's largest and most proud democracy was reduced to a tin-pot
dictatorship.
India was shaken by widespread discontent
beginning in the early 1970s: Demonstrations against rising prices, a decrease
in the supply of essential goods, unemployment, and, most importantly,
corruption in government administration attracted large numbers of people.
In 1974, these protests reached a
crescendo in two states, Gujarat and Bihar, with students taking the lead and
organizing the agitations. That year, the Congress Party of Indira Gandhi's
Gujarat state government was forced to resign and even faced a no-confidence
motion in the parliament. A political crisis was threatening Mrs. Indira, and
she realized she was losing control. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad high
court, from which Indira Gandhi won the 1971 parliamentary election, acted on
an election petition filed by Raj Narain and declared Indira Gandhi's election
invalid on two corruption charges in the conduct of her poll campaign at the
time. As a result, the threat became imminent. She was accused of breaking
Indian law for two things: first, setting up speaker's stands in her
constituency and providing electricity to her amplifying equipment with the
help of other state officers, both of which required the use of government
officials. The ruling by the high court barred her from serving as prime
minister, but it granted a stay of the order for 20 days to allow her party to
select a new leader because the Congress party still held a majority in the
Indian parliament. At that point, the notorious incident occurred.
3.1. GRADUAL CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE
OVER THE JUDICIARY
An attempt was made to undermine
Indian democracy when an emergency was declared on June 26, 1975.A portion of
the Supreme Court gave in, but a significant portion of the Indian judiciary
chose to resist the assault on democratic institutions like the press and
judiciary. A 4:1 decision by the Supreme Court overturned the unanimous
judgment of nine High Courts regarding Habeas Corpus, which stated that a
detainee has a right to Habeas Corpus during an emergency and that Article 21
is not the sole repository of life and liberty. Whether it was regarding a
detainee's right to medical treatment, his interviews with his family, the
lawyers' association's right to organize a meeting, or the High Court Judge's
arbitrary transfer, the High Courts showed courage[10].
However, when Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha ruled that Mrs. Gandhi had engaged in
the "corrupt practice" of using government services in her campaign,
the Supreme Court displayed subservience. Mrs. Gandhi bypassed her own cabinet
and obtained a declaration of emergency from the president, Fakhruddin Ali
Ahmed, in order to obtain a conditional stay of the ruling, which would have
annulled her election and prevented her from running for office for six years.
The following morning, 676 opposition members were detained before dawn. The
resistance that legislators had to Mrs. Gandhi's emergency never recovered. The
emergency resulted in the detention of approximately 111,000 individuals.
In spite of the Bangalore High
Court's July 1975 decision to invalidate detention orders, a bench of the
Supreme Court reversed that decision in April 1976, concluding that no court
had the authority to examine the factual or legal sufficiency of detention
orders. The threat of detention cast a shadow over the legislative process, along
with rumors of torture and press censorship. By pushing a number of amendments
to the constitution through the subservient Parliament, Mrs. Gandhi's
government was able to completely prevent legal attacks on the state of
emergency. Additionally, these modifications safeguarded Mrs. Gandhi's fragile
electoral mandate. As a result, the Parliament failed to fulfill its
constitutional responsibility under Chapter XVIII of the 1950 Constitution to
examine emergency powers' justifications. The extent of the legislature's
collapse is demonstrated by a review of Mrs. Gandhi's most important
constitutional amendments. First, emergency declarations were not subject to
judicial review under the 38th Amendment. Second, Mrs. Gandhi's precarious
position in Rae Bareli was shielded because courts lost their authority to hear
election petitions. Thirdly, the president, prime minister, and provincial
governors were granted complete immunity from prosecution under the 41st
Amendment. It should not come as a surprise that the executive sought formal
protection against post hoc judgment in light of the numerous detentions, house
demolitions, forced sterilizations, and acts of torture. The 42nd Amendment,
the final one enacted during the emergency, was 20 tightly packed pages that
centralized political power and prevented judicial challenge.[11]
3.2. COMPLETE
SUBSERVIENCE OF THE HIGHEST JUDICIARY TO THE EXECUTIVE
The judiciary was subservient to the
monarch in the monarchical system. The judiciary in its current form was also
overshadowed by the executive after the dominion withered away, as all
constitutions are nothing more than gradual evolutions of the monarchial
system. Corruption is the root cause of executive selection in democratic
societies. The judiciary, the second and most crucial pillar, is likely to fail
because it was put together by dishonest executives to accomplish their goals.
An attempt was made to undermine Indian democracy when an emergency was
declared on June 26, 1975. A portion of the Supreme Court gave in, but a
significant portion of the Indian judiciary chose to resist the assault on
democratic institutions like the press and judiciary. A 4:1 decision[12]
by the Supreme Court overturned the unanimous judgment of nine High Courts
regarding Habeas Corpus, which stated that a detainee has a right to Habeas
Corpus during an emergency and that Article 21 is not the sole repository of
life and liberty.
Whether it was regarding a detainee's
right to medical treatment, his interviews with his family, the lawyers' association's
right to hold a meeting, or the High Court Judge's arbitrary transfer, the High
Courts showed courage. However, the Supreme Court displayed subservience. “[13]
The highest executives, who were regarded as the "constitution
makers" by the legal community, had the authority to appoint judges to the
High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.
The executive took full advantage of
this procedure by elevating a number of judges to the position of Chief Justice
rather than other senior judges who were more qualified and appropriate for the
position. This was clearly demonstrated when Justice Beg was appointed Chief
Justice of India rather than Justice H.R. Khanna following the latter's
well-known dissent in the 4:1 judgment, despite the former being his junior.
The executive was manipulating the Supreme Court's decisions at times when it
became obvious and even quite visible. The Court did nothing against the
executive government during these episodes because it lacked the necessary
machinery to carry out orders against the police-controlling government,
despite intense pressure on the latter.
In the habeas corpus case, Justices
Khanna, Beg, Chandrachud, and Bhagwati exhibited bravery in court and were
punished for their independent opinions. Fourteen high court judges who were
involved in various judgments against the government were transferred without
their consent from one high court to another. It was made a list of 52
inconvenient judges. In addition, the executive made suggestions regarding the
creation of a higher council than the judges. As long as the judiciary was
subservient to the legislature and the executive, it was impossible to expect
justice or welfare for the common man[14].
The Supreme Court after the Emergency suffered from a guilt complex regarding
its Emergency role.
The undemocratic laws that were
passed during the Dark Age were changed to fit the current situation, and
efforts were made to fix everything.
3.3. EXECUTIVE PLAYING
LEGISLATURE FOR TWO YEARS
The entire state apparatus, including
the army, was inactive for the purposes of repression. With the emergency,
citizens' fundamental rights were suspended by Article 358 of the Constitution,
particularly the "right to freedom of speech and expression,"
"right to assemble peacefully without arms," and "right to form
associations or unions" guaranteed by Article 19. The 42nd Amendment to
the Constitution outlawed all "anti national activities" and
"anti national associations," which were interpreted to include any
"anti governmental activity." Article 359 of the Constitution grants
the President the authority to suspend the right to move any court for the
enforcement of any civil liberties when a Proclamation of Emergency is in
effect.
The Defence of India Act and the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, which was a controversial
law passed by the Indian parliament in 1971 and gave the administration of
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Indian law enforcement agencies super powers -
indefinite "preventive" detention of individuals, search and seizure
of property without warrants, and wiretapping - in the quelling of civil and
political disorder in India as well as countering foreign-inspired sabotage,
terrorism, subterfuge, This Act was applicable not only because of external aggression
during the emergency but also because of internal turmoil. It went against
everything that the law and the Constitution say about civil rights.
The person arrested could be held for
a year if the authorities were "satisfied" that it was necessary to
use it in order to "effectively deal with the emergency." During the
emergency period, four presidential orders even amended MISA, bolstering the
so-called "judicial arsenal."
The arresting authority was not
required to provide the prisoner with the reasons for his detention (Law of 15
August 1975), and the Central or State governments had equal authority to
declare to any person detained under the Act "that it is necessary to
detain such person for effectively dealing with emergency."[15]
• There was a complete ban on
disclosing the reasons for detention. On January 25, 1976, no news or
information related to this kind of arrest could be made public or revealed.
• On August 25, 1976, preventive
detention was extended to 24 months. Additionally, anyone arrested under MISA
(per article 16(A)) was denied the moral judicial guarantees and, particularly,
the right to appeal the decision. Preventive detentions had taken on an
arbitrary form. Criminal charges were being brought against individuals.
For two years, the administrative
authorities could arrest anyone they wanted. The massive seizures that the
barbaric government carried out following the declaration of an internal
"emergency" on June 25, 1975, provided the Indian High Courts with
writ petitions from MISA detainees. Based on Makhan Singh's[16]
principles, a number of high courts decided that they had authority under
Article 226 to issue a writ of habeas corpus in cases where detention orders
were illegal or excessive.[17]
During the Emergency of 1976, the
Supreme Court (SC) issued a shocking decision in the habeas corpus case ADM
Jabalpur that shocked the nation as a whole. Niren De, India's then-Attorney
General, emphasized the term "liberty" in Article 21 of the
Constitution. His main argument was that the detenue had no locus standi and
their writ petitions would have to be dismissed because they had lost their
right to move any court. The following day, Justice Khanna is remembered for
asking him one awkward question. Life is also mentioned in Article 21, so does
the Government's argument include it? Niren De promptly responded, "The
courts are helpless even if life was illegally taken away."
The Supreme Court ruled in this case
that nobody had any right to life or liberty during the Emergency.
In a ruling in January 2011, a bench
consisting of Justices Aftab Alam and Ashok Kumar Ganguly noted in the 4:1
ruling that Justice Khanna had erroneously issued a dissenting judgment by
stating that Article 226 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the high
courts are authorized to issue writs of Habeas Corpus, is an essential
component.
The Indian government appointed the
Shah Commission to investigate all of the excesses committed during the Indian
Emergency (1975–1977). After two years, the commission deposed hundreds of
people and produced a 500-page report on the atrocities committed during the
emergency. It slammed the personalities of Indira Gandhi, her younger son
Sanjay Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee, Bansi Lal, and Kamal Nath, as well as other
civil servants who assisted Sanjay Gandhi, for the same thing. Every copy of
the report that was published was voluntarily destroyed by the Congress after
it returned to power in 1980. However, it has recently surfaced and sparked
controversy in the political arena.
The MISA detentions were boldly
described as "a lesson to the people's representatives in the legislatures
as to how a statute, initially well conceived, may be misused for purposes
totally alien to its objects and the intention of its farmers" in the
commission's report. The report states:
"There was no threat to the
nation's well-being from sources either internal or external."
3.4. PRESS CENSORSHIP
The national emergency of 1975 marked
a turning point and had an impact on the media as well. The most tumultuous
period in the free India's press history was marked by the suspension of
fundamental rights and the implementation of press censorship.[18]
The time period had both short-term
and long-term effects on the media. The censorship of 1975 demonstrated how the
press as a whole became a tool for the government. The government tightened its
control over the Indian media immediately following the declaration of an
emergency, particularly over the newspapers with a reputation for being free
and lively. The ministry of information and broadcasting became a virtual
caricature of the German Information Minister Dr. Goebbels set up by Hitler and
was molded solely to serve the party in power and its leader.
Because it was considered sedition
against the Congress government, newspapers were prohibited from publishing
anything about the emergency state of India, rights violations, harassment, or
any other issue even remotely related to the actions of the government in
power. Therefore, the newspapers first protested against this censorship by
removing blank pages. Insofar as they prohibited editors from filling editorial
columns with quotations from great works of literature or from national leaders
like Mahatma Gandhi or Rabindranath Tagore, the guidelines issued by the Chief
Censor went beyond the scope of Rule 48 of the Defence and Internal Security of
India Rules.
Not only was there censorship of the
publication of court judgments, but also instructions were given regarding how
they should be published. In practice, censorship was used to suppress news
that was bad for the government, to highlight news that was good for the
government, and to suppress news that was bad for the people who supported the
ruling party.
4. CRITICISM
The Emergency in the middle of the
1970s was a horrible period in modern Indian history, and no rational person
would dispute that. On the night of June 25, 1975, the world's largest
democracy was transformed into a tin-pot dictatorship—one of many at the time
infesting the Third World—with a single stroke of the President's pen. Indira
invoked article 352 of the Indian Constitution to grant herself extraordinary
powers and begin a massive crackdown on political opposition and civil
liberties. Due to the fact that the war with Pakistan had just come to an end,
the government cited threats to national security. It claimed that the strikes
and protests had severely harmed the nation's economy and paralyzed the
government. Indira followed the advice of a few close party members and her
younger son Sanjay Gandhi, who had become a close political advisor, despite
widespread political opposition, desertion, and disorder throughout the country
and the party. With the assistance of the Parliament, which the Congress controlled
with a two-thirds majority, Indira Gandhi attempted to rewrite the nation's
laws. She used the President to issue "extraordinary laws" that
bypassed parliament entirely, allowing her to rule by decree, as she felt her
powers were not growing quickly enough. She developed a 20-point economic plan
to combat poverty and illiteracy, improve public services, and increase
agricultural and industrial production. In addition, she had no trouble
enacting constitutional amendments that cleared her of any wrongdoing in her
election fraud case. She also jailed thousands of opponents and declared
President's Rule in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, where anti-Indira parties ruled.
State legislatures were dissolved and suspended indefinitely as a result. There
is no doubt that Indira Gandhi used the Emergency to subvert or kill the
institutions that support democracy and cause long-term harm to them.
Ironically, her even more illustrious father started and nurtured these.
However, the issue at hand is whether or not she is entirely to blame for this
upsetting occurrence.
5. CONCLUSION
With the strong leadership of Pt.,
India had a strong nationalist base. as the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru. However, the members of the legislative assembly at that time were elitist.
The majority of people were illiterate, so the democracy was working well for
them.
At the time, Congress was working for
the indigenous bourgeoisie. As a result, congress became a party of the
established order. The state parties' sudden rise to power in 1967 marked a
turning point.
This was a sign that Indian politics
were becoming more democratic. International financial institutions devalued
the rupee as a result of the imbalance in the balance of payments, and India
began to enter economic crises. With her campaign slogans of "eradicate
poverty," Mrs. Indira Gandhi won all of the votes in the 1971 elections.
Mrs. Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India in 1975 as a result of the
misuse of article 356 of the Indian constitution. Indian democracy was weakened
by economic crises, the creation of Bangladesh, and authoritarian rule at the
center. As a result, cabinet members and ministers lost their decision-making
authority and were replaced by Mrs. Gandhi. According to the Supreme Court, "civil
liberties were withdrawn to a great extent;" it witnessed the temporary
end of democracy in our nation. People's important fundamental rights were
taken away; Press freedom was severely restricted; and judicial authority was
significantly restricted." Fortunately, the Emergency was lifted following
the elections of 1977. However, citizens have a right to be informed about the
events that led up to the Emergency, the real and predominant factors that
caused it to be imposed, the reasons behind the ready and willing manner in
which the then-President Fakhruddin Ahmed gave his approval, and a plethora of
other issues that are connected to it. The purpose of obtaining this
information is not to rehash the shady past or hold those responsible
accountable accountable, but rather to examine the mechanisms and structures
that enabled the swift enactment of the emergency and either eliminate or
modify them to prevent future occurrences. As a result, it is abundantly clear
that the Indira Gandhi government's preplanned drama in 1975 caused the
national emergency. in order to achieve particular political goals.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF CASES
• Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri
Raj Narain And Anr. AIR 1975 SC 2299.
• Additional District Magistrate,
Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla 1976 AIR 1207.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
AIR 1958 Pat 210.
• Makhan Singh Tarsika v. State of
Punjab AIR 1964 SC 381.
LIST OF BOOKS
• Omar, Imtiaz (2002), Emergency
Powers and the Courts in India and Pakistan. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
• Hardgrave, Robert L.; Kochanek,
Stanley A. (2008), India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation.
Cengage Learning.
• Austin, Granville (1999), Working a
democratic constitution: the Indian experience. Oxford University Press.
• R.N. Mukherjee(1984), Democracy - A
Failure, Shefocracy - The Solution to Human Welfare.
• Max Jean Zins(1988), Strains on
Indian Democracy.
• Imtiaz Omar(2002), Emergency Powers
and the Courts in India and Pakistan.
RESEARCH PAPERS AND MAGAZINES
• India in 1975: Democracy in
Eclipse, ND Palmer - Asian Survey, vol 16 no 5.
• Judiciary under Executive Assault,
PUCL Bulletin, July 1981.
• Pratiyogita Darpan (March 2007).
• Jos. Peter D 'Souza(2001), When the
Supreme Court Struck Down the Habeas Corpus, PUCL Bulletin.
• Kuldip Nayar, Sixty Years of Press
Freedom: Emergency, A Watershed.
[1] Omar, Imtiaz (2002). Emergency
Powers and the Courts in India and Pakistan. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.
129.
[2] Pratiyogita Darpan (March 2007).
pp. 60.
[3] Hardgrave, Robert L.; Kochanek,
Stanley A. (2008). India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation.
CENGAGE LEARNING. p. 159
[4] Id
[5] AIR 1958 Pat 210.
[6] N.D. Palmer, India in 1975:
Democracy in Eclipse, ASIAN SURVEY, vol 16 no 5.
[7] Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri
Raj Narain And Anr. AIR 1975 SC 2299
[8] GRANVILLE AUSTIN (1999), WORKING A
DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE, p. 295
[9] D.N. Dhanagare (1979), Sixth Lok
Sabha Election in Uttar Pradesh - 1977: The End of the Congress Hegemony, POLITICAL
SCIENCE REVIEW, pp 28-51.
[10] Judiciary Under Executive Assault,
PUCL BULLETIN, July 1981.
[11] Aziz Z. Huq, BRENNAN CENTRE FOR
JUSTICE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, USA
[12] Additional District Magistrate,
Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla 1976 AIR 1207.
[13] Supra note 10
[14] R.N. Mukherjee (1984), Democracy -
A Failure, Shefocracy - The Solution to Human Welfare, pp. 102.
[15] 16(A), inserted with effect from
26-6-1975 by the Maintenance of Internal Security(Amendment) Act, 1975 (39 of
1975).
[16] Makhan Singh Tarsika v. State of
Punjab [1964] A.I.R. 381
[17] Supra note 1 at 100
[18]
Kuldip Nayar, Sixty Years of Press Freedom: Emergency, A Watershed.