Emergency wasn't just a reaction to judiciary's rulings

Indian Express

25-06-2025

On June 25, 1975, India was put under Emergency. People were stripped of their constitutional rights and horrors were inflicted on them. Critics of the government and Opposition leaders were put behind bars. Some of them never tasted freedom again, breathing their last while incarcerated.
Fifty years later, the Emergency remains a dark chapter in India's democratic journey. It must be recalled, remembered and condemned because the real reason for imposing the Emergency was far more sinister than commonly understood. Many believe that Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency because she was rattled by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha's judgment invalidating her election from Rae Bareilly. By her own admission, Mrs Gandhi did it sensing an 'internal threat' in the country in June.
Evidence, however, suggests the plot to enforce the Emergency had been underway since early January that year. Journalist Coomi Kapoor in The Emergency: A Personal History mentions a handwritten note (dated January 8, 1975) from then West Bengal Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray requesting Mrs Gandhi for lists of persons proposed to be arrested. The list also mentioned various other steps that needed to be taken. On August 11, Congress mouthpiece National Herald stated in an editorial the real reason for the Emergency. It said that the time had come for India to evolve into a single-party democracy.
In Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India, historian Srinath Raghavan writes that Mrs Gandhi's closest aides had been pushing for a presidential system. This system was one of limited dictatorship, a committed judiciary and a committed bureaucracy.
In September 1975, B K Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and close aide of Mrs Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a 'tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support'. He wrote to Mrs Gandhi that Parliamentary democracy had 'not been able to provide the answer to our needs' and urged her to 'make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority'.
One would have dismissed the letter as an act to please the PM had Mrs Gandhi not approved of discussing these ideas with her party leaders.
The ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh. As these aides explored the proposals made by B K Nehru on Mrs Gandhi's instructions, what emerged was a document titled 'A fresh look at our Constitution: Some suggestions'. Drafted in 1975, the document proposed a presidential system with a powerful president and a 'Superior Council of Judiciary' to control judicial appointments and legislation, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court's role.
In response to Mrs Gandhi's call to 'explore BK Nehru's proposal and party demand for constitutional change', Congress president D K Barooah appointed, on February 26, 1976, a committee 'to study the question of amendment of the Constitution… in the light of experience'. The 12-member committee, headed by Swaran Singh, submitted 'tentative proposals' to the Congress president in April 1976 and these were then circulated among a select few.
The then Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Justice P B Gajendragadkar, wrote to Mrs Gandhi that while an amendment to the Constitution was necessary, 'ad-hocism is undesirable and adoption of extremist doctrinaire positions is irrelevant and inadvisable'. He advised the then PM 'to appoint a high-powered committee to research and discuss the problem in depth for a dedicated and comprehensive effort'.
Sadly, no such committee was appointed.
Justice Gajendragadkar later reiterated his view that the amendments to the fundamental law of the land should not have been left to a party committee and that the modality could, advisedly, have been a committee of experts to hear all parties and persons. He said that the committee appointed by Barooah had 'worked in a hurry, discussed issues in a casual manner and based its recommendations mainly on political considerations'.
The 42nd Amendment, infamously called the 'mini-Constitution', brought in sweeping changes. Its primary objective, based on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, was to enhance the power of the central government and reduce the influence of the judiciary. The 42nd Amendment curtailed the power of the courts to review and invalidate laws passed by Parliament. This was done by amending Articles 32, 131, and 226. It also diluted the power of high courts to issue writ petitions. This is the same power that B R Ambedkar said was the very heart and soul of India's Constitution.
The 42nd Amendment altered the balance of power between the Centre and the states. States found themselves with less control over their own affairs, leading to tensions and conflicts over jurisdiction and governance.
The centralisation of power made it harder for regional parties to advocate for regional issues. The publication of parliamentary proceedings in the media was prohibited under the Emergency. The Statesman warned that 'by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the Parliament'.
The attempt Congress made to impose dictatorship in the country was throttled as, despite the mass jailing of leaders, the Opposition — which would later form the Janata Party — continued to fight for people's rights and the restoration of democracy. Mrs Gandhi also faced backlash from the global community and was rattled by political developments in the Subcontinent where similar attempts were made to usurp people's rights.
But the basic DNA of Congress stays the same.
Congress leaders walking around with copies of the Constitution are attempting to make people forget the party's gory past. June 25 serves as a reminder that the Indian Constitution is above and before all else. Led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP and the country together will continue to defend it.
The writer is Union Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change