Emergency horrible mistake, darkest period for liberty: Legal experts

New Delhi | The proclamation of Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975 was a "horrible mistake" and the "darkest period" for liberty in India's history post-independence, eminent legal experts have said.

They said the 21-months period of Emergency imposed 50 years ago was a "grim watermark" in India's democratic journey and it had its most profound impact on the country's democratic institutions.

"The Emergency was a horrible mistake. Its major lesson is that constitutional power should never be personalised. That is also a message to our present rulers. Tyranny is anathema. The people of India stood up against it. And they always will," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan shared.

Noted constitutional law expert and senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said the 1975 Emergency had a political as well as a judicial dimension.

In the 1976 ADM Jabalpur case, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, by a majority of 4:1, upheld the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency.

The majority verdict of the then Chief Justice of India A N Ray and Justices M H Beg, Y V Chandrachud and P N Bhagwati held that the right to seek legal remedy for violations of Article 21 was suspended during the Emergency.

The lone dissenter, Justice H R Khanna, held that the right to life and liberty is inherent and not merely a gift from the Constitution.

The 1975 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain had preceded the ADM Jabalpur verdict.

On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court convicted Gandhi of electoral malpractices and debarred her from holding any elected post under the Representative of Peoples Act.

The verdict is widely believed to have led to imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

Gandhi had won the 1971 Lok Sabha election from the Rae Bareli seat in Uttar Pradesh by defeating her opponent Narain.

Narain challenged her election alleging electoral malpractices saying Gandhi's election agent Yashpal Kapoor was a government servant and that she used government officials for personal election related work.

"This darkest period (of Emergency) for liberty in India's history post-independence was marked by both political abuse of constitutional powers and authoritarianism by Congress leadership under Indira Gandhi as well as ... atrocious judicial response of Supreme Court amounting to surrender before authoritarianism," Dwivedi said.

He also referred to the historic judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

The path-breaking 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgement on "basic structure" doctrine had clipped the vast power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and simultaneously gave the judiciary the authority to review any amendment.

While Dwivedi said people's active vigilance is the only guarantee against destruction of constitutional democracy, Dhavan said power corrupts and absolute power is intolerable.

"The message is -- never again, now or ever," Dhavan added.

In the landmark nine-judges "Right to Privacy" Puttaswamy ruling in 2017, the bench effectively overruled the ADM Jabalpur verdict and said, "The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence." When histories of nations are written and critiqued, the bench said, there are judicial decisions at the forefront of liberty.

The verdict continued, "Yet others have to be consigned to the archives, reflective of what was, but should never have been." "ADM Jabalpur must be and is accordingly overruled," held the nine-judge Constitution bench.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said, "As someone engaged with constitutional law, I regard the Emergency imposed between June 1975 and March 1977 as a grim watermark in India's democratic journey".

While terming the ADM Jabalpur case verdict as "regrettable", Pahwa highlighted the "moments of correction" including Puttaswamy judgement which recognised right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"These shifts illustrate that while constitutional setbacks are real, course correction is possible -- but only through institutional courage and public vigilance. The lesson of the Emergency is not archival; it is a living reminder that democracy must be defended daily, not just electorally, but constitutionally," he said.

Supreme Court lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj felt Emergency would remain as a constant reminder of the fragility of the country's democracy.

"It illustrated the perils of idolatry in politics about which Dr Ambekar famously warned. Also it demonstrated the dangers of sheer majoritarianism that makes the executive more aggrandising and less accountable. History shows that we had better governance under coalition regimes which were relatively more democratic," he said.

Raj underlined the importance of preserving the institutions of democracy from individual obstinacy for power.

"Constitutional values are to be cultivated through continues political education of the masses," he added.

Advocate Ashwani Dubey said the most profound impact of Emergency was on India's democratic institutions and suspension of fundamental rights led to widespread human rights abuses.

He referred to the arbitrary arrests and detention without trial during that period.

"The censorship of the press stifled free expression, leading to a climate of fear and suppression of dissent. The government controlled the narrative, and any criticism was ruthlessly suppressed," Dubey said.

He said not only individual freedoms were curbed, the Emergency period undermined the media's role as a watchdog of democracy.