Latest news with #44thAmendment
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Ordinance and more (Week 117)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of daily subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Polity and Governance to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Which of the changes in the Constitution took place during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment? 1. Amendment of the Preamble 2. Amendment of the Seventh Schedule 3. Amendment of Article 105 4. Insertion of new article 31D Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation — The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. — There were following changes in the Constitution that took place during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment: Amendment of the Preamble, Amendment of the Seventh Schedule, Amendment of Article 105, Insertion of new article 31D, Amendment of article 31C, Insertion of new article 39A, Insertion of new article 43A, Special provisions as to pending petitions under article 226, Power of the President to remove difficulties and more. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. For complete list of amendments/changes: Article 15 of the Constitution of India explicitly prohibits discrimination based on: 1. religion 2. race 3. caste 4. nationality 5. place of birth Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 3, 4 and 5 (d) 1, 2, 3, and 5 Explanation — Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. — Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. — Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. — The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted this viewpoint. Even before the 42nd amendment changed the Preamble, a 13-judge court in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati decision concluded that secularism is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution that cannot be removed. — 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' according to the current administration. — In the 1994 Bommai decision, which dealt with Centre-State relations, the Supreme Court reiterated secularism as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. The Shah Commission submitted its findings on: (a) misuse of government power, preventive detentions, press censorship, and the sterilisation campaign. (b) the 2002 Gujarat riots. (c) on sexual assault and violence against women after the Nirbhaya case. (d) allegations regarding assets of former CJI K. G. Balakrishnan. Explanation — To investigate the widespread abuse of power during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977, the then newly elected Janata Party government headed by Prime Minister Morarji Desai appointed a commission of inquiry under former Supreme Court Chief Justice J C Shah in May 1977. — The Shah Commission reported its findings in 1978, detailing the alleged abuse of power by politicians and bureaucrats, particularly those close to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay, during the Emergency. — Justice J.C. Shah, former Chief Justice of India, headed the Shah Commission of Inquiry, which was created in May 1977. Its mandate was to look into excesses committed between June 25, 1975 and March 21, 1977. — The Commission looked into the abuse of government power, preventive detentions, press censorship, and the sterilisation drive. — It gathered evidence through public hearings, testimonials, and official documents. From 1978 to 1979, the Commission submitted three reports. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Other Source: With reference to the Preamble, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court, in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, described the Preamble as 'a key to open the mind of the makers'. 2. The Supreme Court had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. — The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. — The additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Hence, statement 2 is correct. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Consider the following pairs related to events and the associated year: 1. Nationalisation of 14 major commercial banks – 1970 2. Abolition of Privy Purses – 1981 Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — With Indira Gandhi taking a clear leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and won the Lok Sabha elections later that year with the campaign slogan 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') — the inclusion of 'socialist' was intended to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution provides for an Address by the President to either House or both Houses assembled together. 2. The matters referred to in the Address by the President to the Houses are discussed on a Motion of Thanks moved by a Member and seconded by another Member. 3. The scope of discussion on the President's Address is very wide and the functioning of the entire administration is open for discussion where members can also refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India but affects the functioning of states as well. Which of the following statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Explanation According to When does the President address the Parliament? — The Constitution provides for an Address by the President to either House or both Houses assembled together [Article 86(1)]. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — The Constitution also makes it incumbent upon the President to address both Houses of Parliament assembled together at the commencement of the first Session after each General Election to the Lok Sabha and at the commencement of the first Session each year and inform Parliament of the causes of its summons. [Article 87(1)]. — The matters referred to in the Address by the President to the Houses are discussed on a Motion of Thanks moved by a Member and seconded by another Member. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — The scope of discussion on the Address is very wide and the functioning of the entire administration is open for discussion; the limitations inter alia are that Members should not refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India, and the name of the President should not be brought in during the debate since the Government, and not the President, is responsible for the contents of the Address. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (source: Which of the following Committee/Commissions was constituted to address the demand for reservation and other affirmative actions for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs)? (a) Nanavati Commission (b) Kirit Parikh Committee (c) Kalelkar Commission (d) Kelkar Committee Explanation — As soon as the 1951 Census was completed, the government in January 1953 decided to constitute a commission headed by then Rajya Sabha MP, social reformer and journalist Dattatreya Balkrishna Kalelkar, popularly called Kaka Kalelkar, to look after the demand for reservation and other affirmative actions for the other backward classes (OBCs). — On March 18, 1953, then President Rajendra Prasad formally inaugurated the Kalelkar Commission. Speaking on the occasion, both President Prasad and Prime Minister Nehru expressed the hope that the 'labours' of the commission would pave the way for a 'classless' society in India. Nehru, who disliked the term 'backward classes', even remarked that it was wrong to label any section as backward, even if they were so, particularly, when 90% of the people in the country were poor and backward. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. With reference to Ordinances, consider the following statements: 1. The President may return the recommendation of the Cabinet once if she feels it warrants reconsideration; if it is sent back (with or without reconsideration), she has to promulgate it. 2. In D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1986) Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Governor repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances without legislative approval. Which of the above given statements is/are true? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — Under Article 123 of the Constitution ('Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament'), 'if at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.' — An Ordinance 'shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament'. But the government is required to bring an Ordinance before Parliament for ratification — and failure to do so will lead to its lapsing 'at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament'. — Since the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, it is in effect the government that decides to bring the Ordinance. The President may return the recommendation of the Cabinet once if she feels it warrants reconsideration; if it is sent back (with or without reconsideration), she has to promulgate it. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — If, for whatever reason, an Ordinance lapses, the only option for the government is to reissue or re-promulgate it. In 2017, the Supreme Court examined a case where the state of Bihar re-promulgated an Ordinance several times without placing it before the legislature. (Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar) — A seven-judge Bench of the court, which included now Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, reiterated that legislation should normally be done by the legislature, and the Governor's power to issue an Ordinance is in the nature of an emergency power. — The court clarified that there might be circumstances permitting the re-promulgation of an Ordinance — however, it said, repeated re-promulgations without bringing the Ordinance to the legislature would usurp the legislature's function, and would be unconstitutional. — The court declared the actions in that case to be 'a fraud on constitutional power', and said that the Ordinances were re-promulgated in violation of the SC judgment in Dr D C Wadhwa and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors (1986). — In D C Wadhwa, a challenge was mounted against the power of the Governor to re-promulgate various Ordinances in Bihar, after 256 Ordinances were promulgated between 1967 and 1981, out of which 69 were re-promulgated several times and kept alive with the permission of the President. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then CJI P N Bhagwati held that 'an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor to meet an emergent situation shall cease to be in operation at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature.' Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 115) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 116) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. Manas Srivastava is currently working as Senior Copy Editor with The Indian Express (digital) and leads a unique initiative of IE - UPSC Essentials. He majorly writes on UPSC, other competitive exams and education-related projects. In the past, Manas has represented India at the G-20 Youth Summit in Mexico. He is a former member of the Youth Council, GOI. A two-time topper/gold medallist in History (both in graduation and post-graduation) from Delhi University, he has mentored and taught UPSC aspirants for more than four years. His diverse role in The Indian Express consists of writing, editing, anchoring/ hosting, interviewing experts, and curating and simplifying news for the benefit of students. He hosts the YouTube talk show called 'Art and Culture with Devdutt Pattanaik' and a LIVE series on Instagram and YouTube called 'You Ask We Answer'.His talks on 'How to read a newspaper' focus on newspaper reading as an essential habit for students. His articles and videos aim at finding solutions to the general queries of students and hence he believes in being students' editor, preparing them not just for any exam but helping them to become informed citizens. This is where he makes his teaching profession meet journalism. He is also the editor of UPSC Essentials' monthly magazine for the aspirants. He is a recipient of the Dip Chand Memorial Award, the Lala Ram Mohan Prize and Prof. Papiya Ghosh Memorial Prize for academic excellence. He was also awarded the University's Post-Graduate Scholarship for pursuing M.A. in History where he chose to specialise in Ancient India due to his keen interest in Archaeology. He has also successfully completed a Certificate course on Women's Studies by the Women's Studies Development Centre, DU. As a part of N.S.S in the past, Manas has worked with national and international organisations and has shown keen interest and active participation in Social Service. He has led and been a part of projects involving areas such as gender sensitisation, persons with disability, helping slum dwellers, environment, adopting our heritage programme. He has also presented a case study on 'Psychological stress among students' at ICSQCC- Sri Lanka. As a compere for seminars and other events he likes to keep his orating hobby alive. His interests also lie in International Relations, Governance, Social issues, Essays and poetry. ... Read More
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
India's secular Constitution, even without the word
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar on Saturday called the Emergency-era addition of expressions 'socialist' and 'secular' to the Constitution's Preamble a 'sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan'. Leaders such as Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, and RSS general secretary Dattareya Hosabale have echoed the VP's critique in recent days. The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. Preamble & 42nd Amendment The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. These were just a few of a whole host of changes made by the 42nd Amendment, which introduced the chapter on Fundamental Duties, added new Directive Principles on State Policy, diluted powers of judicial review, and froze delimitation. Behind these changes These changes reflected Indira Gandhi's political objectives during the Emergency, a 21-month period during which the Prime Minister ruled by decree. * Since the 1950s, the tussle between Parliament and the judiciary had revolved around land reform: the political class saw the Court's upholding of fundamental rights, especially the right to property, as placing individual rights over collective rights of people. With Indira Gandhi taking an explicit leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and romped to victory in Lok Sabha polls later that year with 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') as her campaign slogan — the inclusion of 'socialist' was to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. As the 42nd Amendment's Statement of Objects and Reasons read, the addition was meant to 'make the directive principles more comprehensive and give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socioeconomic reforms…'. * The reason for adding 'secular' to the Preamble was not as explicitly spelt out. But it came at a time when the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, predecessor of the BJP, was emerging as a potent political force. In the 1967 general elections, the Jana Sangh had won 35 seats, its best performance till then, and the Congress' tally dropped to 283. While the Congress bounced back in 1971, the Jana Sangh nonetheless remained among Indira Gandhi's foremost political opponents through the Emergency, when a number of its leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani were jailed. 'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist… All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira had told Lok Sabha. * The word 'integrity' was brought into the Preamble at a time when Indira's political rhetoric — and justification for imposing the Emergency — centred around 'forces dividing the nation'. 'When we talk of integrity, it is really the quality or the state of being undivided… Whereas a nation is composed of the people and the country, when we talk of the integrity of the country, we talk of… maintaining the indivisibility of the country along with the unity of the nation,' then law Minister H R Gokhale had said in the Parliament while speaking on the Bill. The difference they made While symbolic, the additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. This view has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court. Even before the 42nd amendment altered the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with. 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states. In the 1994 Bommai ruling, that dealt with Centre-State relations, the SC again upheld secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas. 'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice — social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said. In November 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the addition of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Constitution. 'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided [they] did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause … for challenging this constitutional amendment…,' the Bench said. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Speaker seeks fresh commission to probe Emergency atrocities
Assembly speaker Vijender Gupta on Saturday demanded the formation of a new commission to revisit and investigate the atrocities perpetrated during and after the Emergency because those 'guilty have not been brought to justice yet.' Chief minister Rekha Gupta at the 'mock parliament' session on Saturday. (Sanjeev Verma/HT Photo) Gupta was addressing a symposium titled 'Bhartiya Loktantra aur Samvidhaan ka Sabse Andhkaarmaya Daur: Na Bhoolein, Na Shama Karen' organised at the Delhi Assembly to mark the 50th anniversary of the Emergency (1975–77). Gupta said investigation into the Emergency's aftermath remains incomplete. 'The Shah Commission Report 1978 could not undertake a comprehensive examination of the full scale of human rights violations and administrative excesses. It is imperative that a new commission be formed to revisit and investigate the atrocities perpetrated during and after the Emergency. It is important to note that those guilty of imposing emergency haven't been brought to justice,' said Gupta. Union minister Jitendra Singh, who also attended the event, said, 'The brief but dark period between 1975 and 1977 impacted every citizen in some form — fundamental rights were suspended, press freedom was muzzled under rigid censorship, and thousands were detained without trial. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, passed in 1976, even extended the term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from five to six years — a move that was rightly overturned by the 44th Amendment in 1978, restoring the people's faith in democratic processes,' said Singh. Delhi chief minister Rekha Gupta, who spoke at a 'mock parliament' organised by the Delhi BJP's women wing at Maharashtra Sadan, said, 'During the Emergency, anyone who raised their voice against the government was imprisoned without appeal, argument, or law.' 'Thousands were jailed overnight. Newspapers were banned on Indira Gandhi's orders. Even national icons like Manoj Kumar were banned, and a forced sterilisation campaign created an atmosphere of terror. The Emergency imposed by the Congress must be remembered so that the Constitution is never murdered again, and such a period is never repeated in India… understanding why the Emergency is called a 'black chapter' is crucial — so that such a day is never repeated and no such threat ever returns to India. It must be remembered regularly to prevent recurrence,' said Gupta.
The Print
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Print
50 yrs since Emergency, Congress's journey from justification to admission of ‘mistake'
'When elections were held (in 1980), she returned to power. People were in no mood to rake up the past. The Congress came back with a nearly two-thirds majority,' Kharge told a press conference, echoing a line many party leaders have taken over the years when confronted with the Emergency's uncomfortable legacy. 'They (BJP) put her in the dock over the Emergency, but she acknowledged it was a mistake and also apologised,' Kharge said Wednesday, noting that the former prime minister even voted in favour of the 44th Amendment, which reversed many constitutional changes introduced during the Emergency. New Delhi: On the 50th anniversary of the Emergency declaration, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that Indira Gandhi had admitted the imposition of the Emergency was a 'mistake' for which she had apologised to the people. However, flipping through the pages of history reveals a more nuanced picture. Until Rahul Gandhi's unequivocal admission in 2021 that the Emergency was a mistake, no Congress leader had explicitly apologised for its imposition without qualifiers. Kharge's claim that Indira Gandhi had called it a mistake appears to be a reference to her January 1978 'apology'—which addressed the 'excesses' committed during the 21-month period, but not the act of imposing it itself. In a 1978 interview to Jonathan Dimbleby of UK-based Thames Television, Indira had, in fact, defended her decision, saying it was needed as her political rivals 'were destroying democracy.' 'Because they felt they could not win an election, they said we must take the battle to the streets. Morarji Desai is on record in an interview having said 'we are going to surround the PM house, the parliament, and we will see that no business is done'. … Another member of the opposition, now a minister, said if we cannot win by the ballot we will win by the bullet…India would not have survived. It was as serious as a war period,' Indira said. Her son Rajiv Gandhi, who took over as the prime minister following her assassination in 1984, also employed similar arguments in defending her move when the issue came up in the Lok Sabha on 23 July, 1985. That day, Rajiv, who had a brute majority of 414 seats in the Lok Sabha, found himself cornered in Parliament, with opposition leaders pressing for an adjournment motion to discuss the 'possibility of a proclamation' of a fresh Emergency in the country. Despite Speaker Balram Jakhar rejecting the demand, stating there was no basis for it, socialist leader Madhu Dandavate, along with CPI leader Indrajit Gupta and a few other opposition MPs, compelled Rajiv to intervene. Dandavate argued that certain remarks made by the Prime Minister at a press conference earlier that month had 'created apprehensions about the possibility of a proclamation of Emergency in the country.' With Jakhar struggling to restore order in the House, Rajiv stood up. 'I will answer that,' he said. His subsequent remarks—recorded in the official Parliament proceedings—are telling. 'I was asked a very specific question. One, whether I thought the Emergency when it was proclaimed in 1975 was correct? I said 'yes', I think it is correct and I stand by that statement,' Rajiv said. 'The second part of the question I was asked was 'if conditions similar to those in 1975 were to repeat themselves would I do the same thing?' My answer was that it was highly unlikely that any given set of conditions can repeat themselves. I said that 'if conditions do occur that require an emergency to be proclaimed, I will not hesitate to proclaim an Emergency',' he said. He argued that there was no bigger danger in any country than a 'vacillating government'. 'And that was the type of government we had when you were sitting on this side. That is why you are afraid to talk about the Emergency. There is nothing wrong with an emergency if it is applied when it is required. The Constitution tells us when it is required,' Rajiv said, invoking Indira's return to power in 1980. 'The ultimate people whom the Prime Minister is responsible to are the people of India. And the people of India will decide what they want, irrespective of what the honourable member might feel. And in 1980, they realised their mistake!' Months later, addressing a session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in Mumbai (then Bombay), Rajiv once again justified the imposition of Emergency, stating that it was imposed to 'meet an unprecedented threat to the nation's stability'. The move, he said, boosted India's socio-economic development. 'The process of socio-economic change gathered momentum with the promulgation of the bold and dynamic 20 Point Programme. A democrat to the core of her being, Indiraji called elections in 1977. She accepted the verdict of the people who defeated her and the Congress. She knew it was an angry reaction to some mistakes that had been committed, but that the people were still with her and with the Congress…,' he said. In 2004, in an interview to ThePrint founder and editor-in-chief Shekhar Gupta, who was then the editor of The Indian Express, Sonia Gandhi said that the very fact that Indira called elections in 1977 was a sign that she had a rethink on the Emergency. 'I think she did think that it was a mistake. Because don't forget that at least the Indira Gandhi I knew was a democrat at heart, to the core. And I think circumstances compelled her to take that action but she was never quite at ease with it,' she said, adding that it was a lesson that no future government should repeat any such measure. However, that statement came with the caveat: 'Those were different times.' Also Read: Rajnath, Shivraj & Javadekar. How jail term during Emergency shaped leaders of today's BJP What Pranab, Manmohan & Rahul said In his 2014 book, 'The Dramatic Decade: The Indira Gandhi Years', former president and the late Congress stalwart, Pranab Mukherjee, claimed that Emergency brought 'discipline in public life', a growing economy, controlled inflation, a reversed trade deficit for the first time, enhanced developmental expenditure and a crackdown on tax evasion and smuggling but 'it was perhaps an avoidable event'. 'Suspension of fundamental rights and political activity, including trade union activity, large scale arrests of political leaders and activists, press censorship, and extending the life of legislatures by not conducting elections were some instances of Emergency adversely affecting the interests of the people. The Congress and Indira Gandhi had to pay a heavy price for this misadventure,' wrote Mukherjee. Former prime minister Manmohan Singh, who died in December 2024, is also quoted in his daughter Daman Singh's book 'Strictly Personal: Manmohan and Gursharan' that 'some good things happened' during the Emergency but 'the atmosphere in the whole country was one of fear. There were arbitrary arrests and detentions.' It was only in March 2021 that Rahul Gandhi, in an interaction at Cornell University in the US, said that what happened during that period was 'wrong' and that his grandmother's decision was a mistake. 'I think that was a mistake. Absolutely, that was a mistake. And my grandmother said as much,' Rahul said, when asked about his thoughts. But, he promptly added that there was a fundamental difference between what happened during the Emergency and the prevailing situation in the country. 'The Congress party at no point attempted to capture India's institutional framework and frankly, the Congress party does not even have that capability. Our design does not allow us that and even if we want, we cannot do it,' Rahul said. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 50 years since Emergency: How judges, lawyers enabled & resisted Indira Gandhi's crackdown
