Why Indira Gandhi Asked For Original Copy Of The Constitution Before Imposing Emergency
Then Law Minister HR Gokhale, Attorney General Niren De and Om Mehta assured Indira Gandhi that a particular provision gave the government the power to call for an emergency
Hours before India was plunged into its darkest constitutional hour on the night of June 25, 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sat poring over the original copy of the Constitution. It was the afternoon of 24 June 1975. Political chaos had been brewing for days, but the immediate trigger was a damning verdict from the Allahabad High Court that had threatened her very hold on power.
With mounting pressure from a rising opposition and a wave of mass protests sweeping across the country, Indira Gandhi wanted clarity on one crucial legal point – could she legally impose an Emergency without Parliament's prior approval?
Her aides, Principal Secretary PN Dhar and senior bureaucrat Om Mehta, promptly summoned the Constitution from Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Law Ministry. At her official residence at 1, Safdarjung Road, she turned to a specific provision, Article 352.
What she found in that clause would shape the destiny of a nation.
Article 352: The Gateway To Emergency Rule
Her advisors urged her to focus on Article 352, a provision that allowed the President to declare a national emergency if he believed the nation's security was threatened by war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. Unlike war or rebellion, 'internal disturbance" was a vague and pliable term, undefined in either Parliament or the Supreme Court. It was this ambiguity that became Indira Gandhi's constitutional weapon.
Then Law Minister HR Gokhale, Attorney General Niren De (not Parashar, according to historical records), and Om Mehta assured her that the provision gave the government sweeping powers to rule directly, suspending fundamental rights and democratic processes. They further confirmed that a proclamation could be issued without prior parliamentary approval; only the President's signature was needed on the Prime Minister's written advice.
By late evening on 25 June 1975, Indira Gandhi met President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed twice, once in the evening and again close to midnight. He was considered loyal and unlikely to resist. That night, at her insistence, he signed the proclamation.
At the stroke of midnight, the Emergency was declared.
The roots of this unprecedented move lay in a verdict delivered just weeks earlier. On 12 June 1975, the Allahabad High Court found Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice in her 1971 win over socialist leader Raj Narain from Rae Bareli. The court disqualified her from holding office and barred her from contesting elections for six years.
Soon after the court's ruling, the opposition launched a nationwide campaign demanding her resignation. Leading the movement was the venerable Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), who rallied students, workers, and civil society. In a speech that alarmed the ruling establishment, JP even urged police and military personnel to disobey 'unlawful orders".
The administration painted these acts as an existential threat to the constitutional order. Indira Gandhi's inner circle argued that the country was descending into anarchy – trains had stopped running, courts were being surrounded, and public services had come to a standstill due to strikes.
The most dramatic was the 1974 railway strike, involving 17 lakh workers, which brought the country to a near-halt. A severe economic crisis – fuel shortages, inflation, and unemployment – only intensified the turmoil.
Drafting The Justification For Emergency
As the pressure mounted, Gandhi's legal team crafted a justification for invoking Article 352. The official grounds listed in the emergency file included:
Internal instability and nationwide protests
A conspiracy by opposition forces to overthrow the elected government
Threats to national security and administrative paralysis
A direct appeal by JP to armed forces to defy the government
Dangers to the Prime Minister's personal safety
On the basis of this rationale, the President signed the Emergency order.
The Aftermath Of 1975 Emergency
With one stroke of the pen, democracy was suspended. Civil liberties vanished overnight. The press was muzzled, opposition leaders jailed, judicial oversight curtailed, and censorship became law.
For the next 21 months, India was ruled under extraordinary powers. Thousands of political opponents were imprisoned without trial. A period of forced sterilisations and slum demolitions followed, with the government wielding unchecked authority.
The Post-Emergency Reckoning
When the Emergency was lifted in March 1977, the public delivered a stinging rebuke. Indira Gandhi was voted out of power in a landmark election, and the Janata Party government led by Morarji Desai moved quickly to amend the Constitution. In 1978, through the 44th Constitutional Amendment, the vague phrase 'internal disturbance" was replaced with the more specific 'armed rebellion", to prevent future misuse.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
1975 Emergency Constitution of India Indira Gandhi
First Published:
June 27, 2025, 14:52 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Disturbing': SC Slams Samay Raina, Others Over Jokes On People With Disabilities
Last Updated: Taking strong objection to the remarks, the apex court recorded the personal appearance of the comics and directed them to file formal replies within two weeks. The Supreme Court on Tuesday termed jokes made by stand-up comedian Samay Raina and others about persons with disabilities and rare diseases as 'disturbing", stating it would 'scrutinise individual conduct minutely." The remarks came while the SC heard a petition filed by the CURE SMA Foundation of India, which raised concerns over allegedly insensitive and offensive content shared by Raina and other comedians. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, ordered the comedians to respond to the plea and appear again in court at the next hearing, which is scheduled in three weeks. Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the foundation, argued that the comedians' comments over people with disabilities amounted to 'hate speech", which does not deserve any protection under the right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Taking strong objection to the remarks, the apex court recorded the personal appearance of the comics and directed them to file formal replies within two weeks. The bench also reminded the Centre that existing guidelines on regulating online content, especially on social media and OTT platforms, must align with constitutional values. The bench stressed that the right to freedom and duties of citizens must be balanced. Earlier, while hearing a separate case involving YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia over his crass remarks on 'India's Got Latent' show, the top court had asked the government to consider formulating clearer guidelines to control vulgar and derogatory content online. Justice Kant reiterated the need for public debate on where free expression ends and civic responsibility begins. '…you have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts – freedom, where the limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start…we would like to invite open debate on that," Justice Kant said. On May 5, the top court had summoned five influencers and comedians, including Raina, over offensive content targeting persons with disabilities. It reiterated that any speech that demeans a community or group would be subject to legal restriction. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court denies bail to TRF accused Arsalan Ahenger
The Delhi High Court has declined to grant bail to an alleged operative of The Resistance Front (TRF) terror outfit, citing his 'influence' and a high possibility of tampering with evidence. The court found sufficient material against the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger, stated to be in his early twenties, observing that he posted photos of terrorists and incited people to commit terrorist acts. 'It cannot be said that there is no evidence against the appellant [Mr. Ahenger] that he was closely associated with slain terrorist Mehran Yaseen Shalla or that he has actively participated in the terrorist activities himself,' the court said in its order dated July 7. The court, accordingly, dismissed his appeal against a trial court order from September 2024 that had also denied him bail in the case. Mr. Ahenger was arrested on December 30, 2021. The National Investigation Agency has alleged that, in the backdrop of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, conspiracies were being hatched by various terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and TRF for targeted attacks on minorities, security forces, political leaders, and other key individuals. Some of these conspiracies were allegedly planned and executed to create unrest, instability, and fear in the Kashmir region and other parts of the country, the agency has said. Mr. Ahenger is alleged to have been associated with Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a TRF/LeT operative who, along with two others, was killed in an encounter on November 24, 2021. Under Shalla's influence, the agency has claimed, Mr. Ahenger became digitally active on various social media platforms, where radical content was disseminated. He is also alleged to have created certain social media groups such as Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind and Shaikoo Naikoo, and multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed, thereby motivating and radicalising vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.
