PROJECT REPORT ON

IMPACT OF EMERGENCY ON FREEDOM OF

PRESS

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

MR. ANKIT AWASTHI DEVENDRA

DHRUW
(FACULTY ) ROLL NO.- 59 ( SEM-
X)

(MEDIA LAW) BA.LLB (HONS.)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

RAIPUR (C.G.)
 SUBMITTED ON – 06.04.2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In preparing this project I took help from many people but it is very difficult to list every
name. First and foremost I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Ankit Awasthi
Sir for putting his trust on me, by giving me such a topic and for his unstinted support by helping
me in all possible ways. I hope that I have not disappointed him and have done justice to it.

I also want to express my gratitude to the staff and administration of HNLU and to the
library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this project. I would also
like to thank all my seniors who always guided me without their help, it would have been
impossible for me to complete this project.

Devendra Dhruw

Roll No.- 59

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................02

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………..…...03

Research methodology.........................................................................................................03

Introduction.........................................................................................................................04

Chapter – 1 : CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND FREE MEDIA………….……06

Chapter - 2 : WAS EMERGENCY INEVITABLE?.............................................................09

Chapter - 3 : THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST PRESS………………….…………......….12

Chapter - 4 : EMERGENCY AND DEATH OF DEMOCRACY ………………………....14

Conclusion............................................................................................................................16

Reference..............................................................................................................................17

2
OBJECTIVES

To find out the impact of emergency on freedom of press which is a fundamental right of a
citizen but by declaring emergency the right was curtailed.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data type: -. This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary sources have been
largely used to gather information and data about topic. Other references as guided by Faculty
have been primarily helpful in giving this project a firm structure. Help has also been taken from
web sites, reference books etc.

Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a
particular provision of law. Uniform Bluebook (19th ed.) citation format has been followed for
footnoting.

3
 INTRODUCTION

“If it were left on me to decide whether we should have government without newspapers or
newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

-Thomas Jefferson

Constitutional articles, statutory provisions, and judicial decisions do guarantee and ensure an
operational freedom to the mass media in a liberal democracy. All these, however, itself can’t
guarantee and ensure a fearless action of the media in its working. Democratic system in
comparison to any other political systems, as it is theoretically believed, provides more
conducive legal and political conditions to the media in the exercise of its working freedom. As a
result, the media enjoy and exercise its freedom within a given legal framework as long as that
given legal framework works. But, if such given legal framework either fails or is made to fail by
any democratically elected authority by taking advantage of the letters of the law then what
could ensure and protect that freedom of the media in that democratic political system? A simple
answer could be: a sense of fearlessness among the media people. However, fearlessness is not a
medicinal product to be injected in veins of media men. On the contrary, it is the product of
one’s courage, conviction and commitment to a profession notably considered to be the 83 fourth
estate of democracy and a watchdog of citizen’s rights and civil liberties. As Michael Walzer has
formulated a reciprocal relationship between a democratic state and a democratic civil society:
“only a democratic state can create a democratic civil society, [and] only a democratic civil
society can sustain a democratic state” (Walzer, 1995:170), a similar formulation of a reciprocal
relationship between a democratic state and a free, fair, as well as fearless mediacan be made as:
“a democracy can ensure a free media but a fair and fearless media can ensure more freedom and
more democracy”. The history of India’s freedom struggle left a glorious legacy of a fearless
print media to the media of independent India. The first two and half decades of the newly
declared republic of India had a vibrant democracy along with a relatively free privately owned
print media, rarely found in newly independent states of Asia, Africa and other parts of the
world. However, the Proclamation of state of emergency on the ground of internal disturbance
leading to a threat to the security of state under article 352 of the constitution by the Union

4
Government came as a severe blow to the freedom of the media in particular and to the
democratic institutions in general.Nirja G. Jayal and Pratap B.Mehta recall emergency as the
Hobbesian moment in independent India which badly damaged the three credible institutions of
the Union government during the emergency. In the introduction of an edited book, they write:
“The most dramatic Hobbesian moment in Indian Politics since independence was the
Emergency of 1975-77, and three institutions – Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Election
Commission- bear the scars of the period” (Jayal & Mehta, 2010:.XVII-XVIII). As a matter of
fact, despite previous declarations of emergency by means of external aggression and war (1962
and 1971) under the same constitutional provision, pre censorship remained almost alien to the
freely functioning print media. Indu B. Singh in a published research article just before Mrs.
Gandhi’s coming back to power in 1980writes: “The last few years have witnessed
unprecedented turn of events in the socio-political climate of India. These sociopolitical changes
have brought corresponding changes in the Indian Mass Media system, especially in the freedom
and independence of the Indian Press. In June, 1975, 84 Indira Gandhi’s government declared a
state of emergency and suspended civil liberties. Immediately after the declaration, the
government tightened its control on the Indian Mass Media, especially on the newspapers which
has reputations of being free and lively” (Singh, 1980:35). 1 Therefore, the freedom of the media
was a tested fact in India’s democracy, but fearlessness as a virtue among the media men, as
exemplified by the print media during the freedom struggle (Chandra, 1987), remained untested
so far before emergency. The testing time, however, came in at mid night of 25th June, 1975,
when Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s government declared national emergency throughout the country, and
subsequently pre-censorship was imposed either through statutory provisions or oral guidelines
and instructions purely executive in nature which remained in operation with full effect and
lasting impact till the declaration of elections for the 6th Lok Sabha in January, 1977. This period
of internal emergency, which virtually converted the Union of India into a unitary government
with fully centralized authoritarian governmental mechanism, has come to be called as Mrs.
Gandhi’s Emergency (Austin, 1999:9). Most intellectuals consider it as a blot on the Gandhi-
Nehru.2

1
Note:-A Congress Working Committee meeting told itself in April 1977, after the government’s defeat in
elections, that the emergency was intended to effect long- neglected social reform, especially for “Poor Farmers
and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”, AR, 21-27 May 1977, p. 137-46.
2
Chandra, Bipan & Others. (1987). India’s Struggle for Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books, p. 102.
5
 CHAPTER – I

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND FREE MEDIA

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media
regardless of frontiers.”

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10th December, 1948)

The Republican constitution of India in its Preamble secures liberty of thought and expression to
all citizens (Bakshi, 2009:1). In order to attain this objective, ‘freedom of thought and
expression’has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under article 19 (1) (a) available to all
citizens, subject to the restrictions which may be imposed by the state under clause (2) of the
same article. The relevant portion of 19 reads as follows: 19 (1) All citizens shall have the right-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression; (2) Nothing in the sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall
affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the state from making such law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-
clause in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations
with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence (Bakshi, 2009:34). The freedom of the media, therefore,
is not absolute, and even during normal time, reasonable restrictions may be imposed by the state
on the freedom of media. However, any citizen can challenge that imposed restrictions in the
High Court under article 226 or in the Supreme Court under article 32 of the constitution. Hence
reasonability of restrictions could be examined, and if found unreasonable by the concerned
court, would be declared null and void (Bakshi, 2009:170&74).3

. On the contrary, a declaration of emergency under article 352 has far reaching effects on the
freedom of the media under articles 358 and 359. Under article 352 as originally enacted,
emergency could be declared on grounds of war or external aggression or internal disturbance.
Under article 358 as originally enacted, there was automatic suspension of the fundamental rights
3
Austin, G. (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
6
given under article 19 when an emergency was proclaimed (Bakshi, 2009:295-296). Immediately
after the declaration of emergency by the government of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the government of
India issued a notification imposing pre-censorship under part V of the Defense of India Rules
(D.I.R.) against publication of prejudicial matter. The censorship authority was empowered to
prohibit the publication of any matter prejudicial to (i) defense of India; (ii) civil defense; (iii)
public safety; (iv) maintenance of public order; and (v) efficient conduct of military operations.
Hence, the censorship authority issued certain guidelines for the press to follow during
emergency. Although the emergency, in the extensiveness of its evils, was an aberration in the
history of Indian democracy, it was also the culmination of long tendencies (Shourie, 1980:11).
The centralization of authority grew from the constitution and the central-command structure of
the Congress party. This was increased by the central direction inherent in socialist practice and
by Nehru’s towering presence. Centralization came into full flower with Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s
arrogation of power within government and over the ailing body of the Congress organization,
abetted by her over-zealous admirers. By 26 June 1975, power had shifted from parliament
through the ministry and the cabinet to the Prime Ministry and it would then go to a coterie of
individuals without constitutional office-led by her son, Sanjay Gandhi. During this process,
central and state governments rejected political compromise and came to rely on preventive
detention for controlling social discontent. As this was going on, the shining ideal of the social
revolution had dimmed. Property relations 89 had pitted the executive and the legislature against
the courts, resulting in bitter conflicts and major constitutional changes. Successive promises to
the electorate exceeded each other in grandiosity (CWC, April 1977). For the most parties and
candidates, elections had become pursuits of power unrelated to gaining office for the genuine
pursuit of programme. For the opposition parties ‘extra-parliamentary’methods had become a
way of political life; for the government high- handedness had become habitual. Many notable
observers took note of the culmination of trends. The then serving High Commissioner of India
in United Kingdom, Mr. B.K. Nehru, wrote that Nehru and Shastri ‘knew what a constitution
was checks and balances’. But Indira Gandhi ‘in the effort to have a populist image… went on
the concept of committed bureaucracy, committed judiciary4

4
Kamath, M.V. (1980). Professional Journalism. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
7
SOCIO-ECONOMIC-POLITICO CONDITIONTIONS ON THE EVE OF EMERGENGY

FREEDOM GAINED AT MID NIGHT TO FREEDOM LOST AT MID NIGHT

Mid night witnessed two of the very critical moments of modern Indian history with contrasting
effects. History tells that India attained freedom at mid night on 14 August, 1947 and the historic
speech ‘Tryst with Destiny’was delivered by Pandit Jawaharalal Nehruafter taking over power
from the British Viceroy and Governor General, Lord Mountbatten in the Central Hall of
Parliament. However, The country manifestly was not doing well in the early 1970s. The mid
seventies witnessed through the unprecedented turn of events in the socio-political climate of
India. From the early 1970s onwards, widespread discontent shook India: large sections of the
population came out in demonstrations against rising prices, fall in the supply of essential
commodities, unemployment, and more importantly, corruption in government administration.
The all-India Railway Employees went on strike in May 1974. These protests reached a
crescendo in two states – Gujarat and Bihar – in 1973-74, with students leading the agitations
and giving them an organized shape. The Gujarat state government headed by then Chief
Minister, Chiman Bhai Patel, ruled by Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party, was forced to resign that
year. In fresh elections to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly in early June 1975, the Congress was
trounced and the opposition parties formed the new government in that state. Mrs. Indira Gandhi
realized that she was losing her grip, and was threatened by a political crisis (Nayar, 1977:34).
Mrs. Gandhi did not contrary to that glory, history also tells that Indians were deprived of that
freedom, though for a brief period, that too at mid night by their own elected government, and
historic statement ‘vinashakale, viparita buddhi’was uttered by none other than Loknayak
Jayparakash Narayan after his arrest at mid night from the guesthouse of the Gandhi Peace
Foundation, New Delhi, by the police of his own country for which he had spent many years in
prison during the British imperial rule..5

5
Jayal, Nirja G & Mehta, Pratap B. (ed.) (2010), The Oxford Companion to Politics In India, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
8
 CHAPTER – II

WAS EMERGENCY INEVITABLE?

Many argue that the emergency was the inevitable outcome of social, economic and political
crises resulting in “systematic failure.” One of them is Prof. P. N. Dhar, then Secretary to the
Prime Minister and her chief official advisor during this period. In his book, ‘Indira Gandhi, the
Emergency and Indian Democracy’, he states that it was largely because of the opposition
pressure that Mrs. Gandhi was forced to impose emergency. He says, “Even before Mrs. Gandhi
could file her appeal, to which Mrs. Gandhi was entitled, a delegation of opposition leaders from
the Congress (O), Jansangha, Bhartiya Lok Dal, Socialist Party and Akali Dal called on the
President of India and presented a memorandum to him saying that “a grave constitutional crisis
had arisen as a result of Mrs. Gandhi continuing to occupy the office of the Prime Minister
despite a clear and categorical judicial verdict”. Apart from Dhar, there were others who
supported the Emergency. One of them was prominent writer and journalist, Khushwant Singh,
who at that time was the editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India. He says, “By May 1975
public protests against Mrs. Gandhi’s government had assumed nationwide dimensions and often
turned violent. With my own eyes, I saw slogan-chanting processions go down Bombay
thoroughfares smashing cars parked on the roadsides and breaking shop-windows as they went
along. Leaders of opposition parties watched the country sliding into chaos as bemused
spectators hoping that the mounting chaos would force Mrs. Gandhi to resign.” From the above
arguments, it seems that Mrs. Gandhi was left no option but to impose emergency to maintain
law and order which was going from bad to worse at the time and to protect the national
property. To a great surprise, emergency was not only supported by a great freedom fighter and
Bhudani leader, Sant Vinoba Bhahbe but was also praised by him calling emergency an
“Anushashana Parva”. 95 However, critics of emergency and defenders of civil liberties and
democratic rights without any hesitation declared her a power-hungry woman who imposed
emergency to safeguard her own political and personal interests. And the only beneficiary of this
unfortunate period was her son Sanjay Gandhi whom she was nurturing as her political heir.
Granville Austin wrote, 6“The Emergency’s purposes were shown to be not those claimed for it.
6
Indian Expess, 23rd June, 1975, New Delhi.
9
It was not to preserve democracy, but to stop it in its tracks. It was proclaimed to protect the
political office of one individual. It would neither to protect nor further the social revolution,
despite its now arbitrary authority to do so. It would not enhance national unity, although it did
restore civil order and coherence in center- state relations. But at the same time it bred hatred of
over-centralized authority. Instead of protecting the seamless web, the emergency distorted it
beyond the imagination of founding fathers. Self-governance in India ended” (Austin, 1999:296).
One of the most controversial figures in Indian politics, Sanjay Gandhi has often been accused of
being the mastermind behind the atrocities committed during the emergency. It is widely
believed that, through his associate, Mr Jagmohan, then Leutinent governor of Delhi, he ordered
the demolition of slums in Delhi’s Turkman Gate area. To make matters worse, both Sanjay and
Indira Gandhi developed a Twenty-Point program which advertised the “salient features” of
emergency. However, the most controversial agenda was the implementation of a Family-
Planning programme. This programme was a result of Sanjay Gandhi’s so-called “Vision” to
contain population growth in this country. Officially, this exercise was supposed to be a
voluntary one for both men and women. However, there were reports that government officials
were forcing young unmarried men, the poor and in some cases even political opponents. That
Sanjay had a dictatorial streak in his personality is evident, as he frequently used to order
Cabinet ministers and other government officials. In one famous incident, I. K. Gujral, the then
minister for Information and Broadcasting, was forced to resign after 96 he refused to obey
Sanjay Gandhi’s orders. Eminent Journalist, Inder Malhotra remarked, “His ways were rude and
crude. He had a knack of attracting riffraff and roughnecks to him. But none of this prevented
Congressmen, high and low, from fawning on him and swearing ‘eternal loyalty’to his mother
and her family” (Malhotra, 22 May 2010). However, Khushwant Singh calls him a “Lovable
Goonda”. He says, “In some ways he epitomised the slogan he had coined: Kaam ziyaada,
baatein kum (work more, talk less). He was a young man in a hurry to get things done. He had no
patience with tedious democratic processes and red tape, no time for long-winded politicians or
bureaucrats. The fact that he had no legitimacy for imposing his fiats on the country besides
being the son of the prime minister was of little consequence to him”. The Indian Emergency of
25th June 1975 to 21st March 1977 was for a 21- month period. President Fakhruddin Ali
Ahmed, upon advice by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency under
Article 352 of the Constitution of India, effectively bestowing on her the power to rule by decree,

10
suspending elections and civil liberties. This was a dramatic turn in the Indian political affairs.
The democracy was brought to a grinding halt and all the fundamental rights and legal remedies
protected by the constitution were suspended. Mrs. Indira Gandhi tried to defend the emergency
on the ground that she was trying to protect the State and the Indian people. Nevertheless, her
emergency rule faced immense criticism and is undoubtedly one of the most controversial
periods of the political history of Independent India (Saturday Review, 1975:4). Indira Gandhi
and the Death of the Free Indian Press National Emergency and Press Censorship: During the
Summer of 1975, as Indira Gandhi became increasingly more threatened by the mounting
criticisms of her government, she declared a state of emergency. Immediately she took control of
the press, prohibiting their reporting of all domestic and international news. The government
expelled several foreign correspondents (mainly American and British) and withdrew
accreditation from more than 40 Indian reporters who normally covered the capital. In recent
years, this has probably been the most important development in the life of the Indian press.
From the very beginning of independent India, the Congress Party of India remained in power in
one form or another until March 1977. At the inception of national independence, the country
adopted democratic principles and pronounced India a democratic socialist nation. However,
several incidents that occurred during Indira dandhi's reign indicated that the country was
drifting away from parliamentary democracy. The declaration of a national emergency, which is
justified under the Indian Constitution, lasted for about 19 months. The emergency was declared
as a result of mounting political pressure exerted upon the government from opposing political
parties which were striving to fight corruption, inflation and economic chaos in the country.
Indira Gandhi's government, rather than taking this as a poltical challenge, resorted to declaring a
national emergency and imprisoning the opposition party leaders, including all dissenting voices
from the media. The fundamental rights of the Indian people were suspended, and strict controls
were imposed on freedom of speech and press. According to the Right of Freedom-Article 19(1)
of the Indian Constitution, Indians have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression, (b) to
assemble peacefully and without arms, (c) to form associations or unions, (d) to move freely
across the length and breadth of the country, (e) to reside or settle in any part of India, (f) to own
or dispose of property, and (g) to carry on any lawful trade of occupation.' It is obvious that,
unlike the American Constitution or otncrs In which freedom of the press is mentioned as one of

11
the fundamental rights, the Indian Constitution doesn't specifically mention freedom of the press.
However, the fundamental Rights Clause of the Indian Constitution treatsfreedom of the press.

CHAPTER – III

THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST PRESS

The force used by the state is unnecessary because experience all over the world as well as our
own experience since Independence, suggests that the State remains the source of the most
potential threat to the freedom of the Press (Shourie, 1980:11). 97 It cannot be overlooked that,
within a short time after passing the constitution, those in power, who used to swear by Press
freedom before Independence, put in provisos to Article 19 (1) of the Constitution to arm
Government with powers to curb the Press freedom. This was defended on the ground that these
powers were likely to be necessary on occasions when the security of the State was threatened; it
was emphasized that the powers would not be normally used. But a special legislation called the
Press (Prevention of Objectionable Matters) Act was put on the statute book soon thereafter in
1951. No steps were taken to remove the lacunae which gave government powers to intercept
material going to the Press through the Posts and Telegraphs. Some chief ministers thought it
proper to take steps against newspapers whose policy they did not like whether it was a Morarji
Desai in Bombay or a Charan Singh in U.P. A persistent attempt to curb the Press freedom,
however, really began only after 1969. Indira Gandhi felt that the Press was too critical of her
ways and Mrs. Gandhi sought to change its approach. Various threats were held out by
Government and steps proposed to curb that section of the Press, which was thought to be the
most independent. With the aid of some native leftist organizations, a propaganda barrage was
mounted against the Press as well as the judiciary both of which appeared to be not easily
amenable to the Mrs. Gandhi’s Government. Apparently the only reason why the idea of
spreading the equity ownership of newspaper companies especially among the workers and the
journalists employed therein was not pursued was the feeling that such a measure would give
more power in the hands of trade unions that were opposed to the ruling party. On the other
hand, arm-twisting of capitalist owners, especially of those who had many other industrial
interests and were not very much concerned with the freedom of the Press was thought to be not
so difficult. The antipathy to the Press, however, continued and got further intensified; especially
as most of the important papers expressed their dislike of the acts of the ruling establishment.
12
Many dailies advised the Prime Minster to resign after the Allahabad High Court 98 Judgment in
1975. One of the leading English national newspaper, The Hindustan Times said that Mrs.
Gandhi should step down during her appeal to the Supreme Court. Another English national
daily, The Times of India said ‘Justice Sinha’s judgment will detract her from her moral
authority. ‘Therefore, the print media’s observations were not taken in healthy democratic spirit
by Mrs. Gandhi and her government’. As a result, the print media became one of earliest victims
of emergency. Either the silencing the voice of the print media or forcing it to toe down was the
objective of the emergency regime. Hence, even before the imposition of pre-censorship laws,
when the emergency was proclaimed at mid night the printing of news was in full swing all of
sudden printing machines came at stand still because electricity went off at the Bahadurshah
Zafar Road, the hub of newspapers in New Delhi. Initially it was assumed that it was normal
electricity failure, however, later on it was found that the earlier assumption was wrong, and
contrary to that, it was a deliberate act on part of the government to prevent newspapers to see
the light with the breaking news of proclamation of the state of emergency in the country. The
unprecedented happened when the antipathy culminated in the pre-censorship imposed in the
country for the first time during the Emergency. That the pre censorship was used for partisan
ends is sufficiently exemplified by the data Mrs. Gandhi d as a result of the various enquiries
made in 1977-78 (Ghosh, 1998:289). The internal structure of the Congress Party had withered
following its numerous splits, leaving it entirely dependent on her leadership for its election
fortunes. The Green Revolution was transforming the lives of India's vast under classes, but not
with the speed or in the manner The force used by the state is unnecessary because experience all
over the world as well as our own experience since Independence, suggests that the State remains
the source of the most potential threat to the freedom of the Press (Shourie, 1980:11). 97 It
cannot be overlooked that, within a short time after passing the constitution, those in power, who
used to swear by Press freedom before Independence, put in provisos to Article 19 (1) of the
Constitution to arm Government with powers to curb the Press freedom. This was defended on
the ground that these powers were likely to be necessary on occasions when the security of the
State was threatened; it was emphasized that the powers would not be normally used. But a
special legislation called the Press (Prevention of Objectionable Matters) Act was put on the
statute book soon thereafter in 1951. 7

7
Bakshi, P.M. (2009). The Constitution of India. New Delhi: Universal Publication
13
 CHAPTER – IV

EMERGENCY AND DEATH OF DEMOCRACY

In addition to the common man, the judiciary and the media bore the maximum brunt of the
excesses of the emergency. The Constitution, which is the most sacred document of any
functioning democracy, was subverted in the most ruthless manner possible. Indira Gandhi
ensured that all proclamations and ordinances were not subjected to judicial review. Mrs. Gandhi
amended the Representation of the People Act and two other laws in such a retrospective manner
to ensure that the Supreme Court had no other option but to overturn the Allahabad High Court
verdict. As senior advocate Arun Jaitley laments, “The judiciary which had already been made
pliable by the supercessions in 1973 was the main victim. The Supreme Court by a majority of
four to one held that a person could be arrested or detained without legitimate grounds and there
was no remedy in the law courts since all Fundamental Rights were suspended. The attorney-
general of India argued for the government that a citizen could be killed illegally and no remedy
was available since there were no Fundamental Rights of the citizen any more.”Mrs. Gandhi
misused Article 356 to dismiss the opposition governments in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. The
fourth Estate of democracy, the media was also not spared. With the imposition of emergency a
host of repressive measures was introduced, and for the first time in India pre-censorship was
imposed by promulgating a Censorship Order dated 26 1975 under Rule 48 of the Defense of
India Rules, 1971. As a result of the Censorship Order, no news, comment, rumor or other report
relating to any action taken under certain provisions of the DIR, or any action taken under MISA,
could be published unless it was previously submitted to Censor (called authorised officer) for
his scrutiny and his permission was obtained. Under various other clauses no news or report
could be published nor any comment made on the Emergency, the Presidential order suspending
Habeas Corpus, the place or conditions of detention of persons arrested under MISA, or about
the family planning programme, or about the imposition of Presidential rule in the Indian state of
Tamil Nadu and Gujrat without the Censor’s prior scrutiny and permission. Among three Press
Laws which Prime Minister Indira Gandhi got enacted during the emergency, through
Presidential ordinances issued on 8th December 1975 which were subsequently endorsed by
parliament during January102 February 1976, was one repealing the Feroze Gandhi Act
14
(Rajagopal, 1993:138). A second repealing legislation enacted during the emergency abolished
the Press Council of India that had been established in 1966. In addition to repealing the Froze
Gandhi Act and the Press Council Act, the emergency regime got legislation enacted for
‘Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter’. The Act would have placed censorship on a
permanent footing unless, of course, struck down by the higher judiciary after the end of the
emergency.8

8
According to the White paper Misuse of Mass Media, issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in
August 1976.
15
 CONCLUSION

The study has examined the factors responsible for the imposition of internal emergency and
found that though the declaration was not against the letters of law, it was certainly against the
spirit of the democratic constitution. The emergency was not inevitable in that given political
scenario and was an undemocratic response of the government to a democratic politics. It was a
decision taken by the Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi without the consent of the cabinet. It
was a threat to the democratic processes and institutions, citizens lost their constitutional rights
and civil liberties, press was censored and judiciary’s independence was threatened.
Fundamental rights to citizens, freedom to media and independent Judiciary are those essentials
wlthout which no democracy can work. During Emergency the balance of power between the
organs of the government that ceaated was created by the fathers of constitution was completely
disrupted and a priministerial dictorship emrged. Political opposition was suppressed and a
forced peace and calm were imposed. Though the press initially showed some resistance against
the censorship, it could not sustain and finally succumbed. The response of the press was not at
all matched the response of the press in pre-independence period against the colonial state.The
experience of the Emergency also provided enough evidence to show how weak-kneed a very
large part of the Indian Press was when it felt really threatened. One would not have believed
that, during the independence movement, a much larger proportion of newspapers had faced
difficulties and shown courage. The poor morale of many editors and others concerned was aptly
characterized by the Janata Government's Minster for Information and Broadcasting who told the
Press that, when they were only asked to bend, they crawled1 Nevertheless, there were brave
exceptions; and it is important to note who they were. Two of the so-called monopoly papers
resisted encroachment on their freedom and faced considerable risks. These were The Statesman
and The Indian ExpressThe misuses and absuses of power by the ruling party and the
government machinery were at peak which came to light later on when emergency was relaxed
after the declaration of general elections by the government in 1977. In the days of relaxation of
emergency the press brought the truth of emergency to the notice of people and exposed the
emergency regime. The study found that the role of the press was a political catalyst which
helped the people to form their opinion against the emergency regime which ultimately led to
the ouster of the emergency regime in the general elections and saved democracy.

16
 REFERENCES

BOOKS AND ARTICLE

 Austin, G. (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience.

 New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
 Bakshi, P.M. (2009). The Constitution of India. New Delhi: Universal Publication.
 Bhambhri, C.P. (2009). Democracy in India. New Delhi: National Book Trust.
 Chandra, Bipan & Others. (1987). India’s Struggle for Independence. New Delhi:Penguin
Books, p. 102.
 Drieberg, Trevor and Jag Mohan, Sarla (1975). Emergency in India. New Delhi: Manas
Publications.
 Ghosh, Sunit. (1998). Modern History of Indian Press. New Delhi: Cosmo Publication.
 Indian Expess, 23rd June, 1975, New Delhi.
 Interview by Kuldip Nayar, 25 June 2010.
 Interview with Inder Malhotra 22 May 2010.

17