CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Final Draft for the fulfilment of project of Legal Language and

Communication Skills
On
“The Case that Shook India: The Verdict that led to the Emergency” by
Prashant Bhushan

Submitted to: Dr. Pratyush Kaushik Submitted by: Aditi Banerjee

(Professor of English) Roll No.: 2225
1st Year B.B.A LL.B. (Hons.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1
Writing a project is one of the most difficult academic challenges I have ever faced. Though this
project has been presented by me but there are many people who remained in veil, who gave
their support and helped me to complete this project.

First of all, I am very grateful to my subject teacher Mr. Pratyush Kaushik without the kind
support of whom and help the completion of the project would have been a herculean task for
me. He took out time from his busy schedule to help me to complete this project and suggested
me from where and how to collect data.

I acknowledge my family and friends who gave their valuable and meticulous advice which was
very useful and could not be ignored in writing the project. I want to convey most sincere thanks
to my faculties for helping me throughout the project.

Thereafter, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who played a vital role
in the compilation of this research work.

I would also like to express my gratitude towards the library staff of my college which assisted
me in acquiring the sources necessary for the compilation of my project.

Last, but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty for obvious reasons.

Aditi Banerjee

DECLARATION
2
I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Project Report entitled “The
Case that Shook India: The Verdict that led to the Emergency” submitted at Chanakya National
Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Mr.
Pratyush Kaushik. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I
am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………… …2
Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………… ..3
Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…...5
Aims and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………....5
Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………………………… ..5
Scope and Limitation…………………………………………………………………………...5
Method of Research……………...………………………………………………………… .…5
Sources of Data………………………………………………………………………………. .5
Research Question…………………………………………………………………………... . .5
Method of Data Collection…………………………………………………………………… 6
Chapter 1: Introduction…………….…………………………………………………………….7
1.1 About the Author………………………………………………………………………….…8
Chapter 2: Book Summary………………………………………………………………… ….10
Chapter 3: Storyline…………………………………………………………………………….11
Chapter 4: Strengths and Flaws……………………………………………………………...…18
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...20
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………21

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. To study about the book “The Case that Shook India” by Prashant Bhushan.

HYPOTHESIS

The researcher is of the view that through his forceful and gripping narrative, Advocate Prashant
Bhushan offers the reader a front-row seat to watch one of India's most important legal dramas
unfold.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

 The resources on which the researcher resorts for data and information collection is
limited.
 There is time restraint which bounds the researcher.
 And, this research is limited to a particular area.

METHOD OF RESEARCH
 The methodology adopted for this research work is traditional i.e., doctrinal.

SOURCES OF DATA

 The researcher focuses on obtaining information from both the available sources; they are
(1) primary sources of data, (2) secondary sources of data.
 Primary sources of data include first-hand information available like journals, district
plan goals, etc. and secondary sources include magazines, journals, etc.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study seeks for the answer of following research question.

5
  What does the book “The Case that Shook India” deals with?
 How the author has penned the proceedings of the case?

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

 For the purpose of research work, the researcher has adopted doctrinal research method.
In Doctrinal Research Method, the researcher has collected information through library
study, books and through surfing the web.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

6
‘The Case that Shook India’, an invaluable historical document, is written by Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, a public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court of India and an activist, and published by
Penguin Random House India. The book throws light on the case that led to the Emergency of
1975, the darkest hour of democracy in India.

On 12 June, 1975, for the first time in independent India’s history, the election of a Prime
Minister was set aside by a High Court judgement. The watershed case, Indir Gandhi v. Raj
Narain, acted as the catalyst for the imposition of the Emergency. Based on detailed notes of the
court proceedings, ‘The Case that Shook India’ is both a significant legal and a historical
document.

The author, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, provides a blow-by-blow account of the goings-on
inside the courtroom as well as the manoeuvrings outside it, including threats, bribes and deceit.
As the case goes to the Supreme Court, we see how a ruling government can misuse legislative
power to save the PM’s election.

In this context, an attempt has been made in this paper to throw lights on the various aspects of
the book.

7
1.1About the Author

Prashant Bhushan, born on 15th October 1956, is a public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court of
India and an activist, most known for cases such as 2G and Coal Scam. He is also an activist and
a founder member of Swaraj Abhiyan-a campaign organization that focuses on various issues
such as the environment, human rights, corruption and good governance. He was a prominent
member of the group India Against Corruption (IAC) and worked alongside Anna Hazare for the
implementation of the Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's Anti-corruption Ombudsman Bill). Prashant
Bhushan is the oldest of the four children of Shanti Bhushan and Kumud Bhushan. His father is a
lawyer-activist and a former Union Law Minister in the Morarji Desai government. Bhushan,
who briefly attended IIT Madras and Princeton University has a degree in law from Allahabad
University. While still a student, Bhushan wrote ‘The Case that Shook India’, a book on the case
that set aside Indira Gandhi's election in 1974.1

Bhushan was drawn to public activism, influenced by his father. His main areas of interest have
been human rights, environmental protection and accountability of the public servants. He is
associated with various organisations including the Centre for Public Interest
Litigation (CPIL), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and Transparency
1
International (India). He is also the convenor of the Working Committee of the Campaign for

1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prashant_Bhushan#cite_note-1

8
Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms. Bhushan states that he has taken up about 500
cases dealing with "good causes". His family background allowed him to work on a pro-
bono basis for such cases.2

 In 1990, he and his father formed the Committee on Judicial Accountability (CJA) to fight
corruption i2n the judiciary. The organisation comprised some lawyers and ex-judges. Prashant
Bhushan started focusing more on this issue in 1993, after the Supreme Court Justice V.
Ramaswami was not impeached by parliament on corruption charges. In 2007, the Bhushans
expanded CJA to include citizens and form the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and
Reform (CJAR).3

In 2009, Prashant Bhushan repr3esented activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, asking for the
Supreme Court and High Court judges to be brought under RTI. The judges were forced to
declare their assets and post it on the court websites.

In 1990, Bhushan wrote a book ‘Bofors, the selling of a nation’(1990) on the Bofors scandal.

In 2012, he co-founded the Aam Aadmi Party.44

2
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-to-Prashant-Bhushan-How-can-you-become-the-centre-for-public-
interest-litigation/articleshow/50553688.cms
3

https://archive.is/20130105031447/http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?
filename=Ne060908thehouseofbhushan.asp
4
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/aap-expels-four-rebel-leaders/article7123615.ece

9
CHAPTER 2: BOOK SUMMARY

To the average Indian, corruption in politics is about as surprising as the yellowness of dal. Most
people have come to accept that power and wealth will govern elections and that politicians will
not face any real consequences, no matter what underhanded dealings they engage in. And most
people just accept that there is nothing that can be done about this.

“The Case That Shook India” by Prashant Bhushan is the story of how some people decided to
not just accept this state of affairs. It is a story about how the Constitution of India was used to
hold not just some politician to account, but the Prime Minister herself. It is a story filled with
intrigue, plot twists, and courtroom drama. And most remarkably, it is not a story at all, but an
account of the real events that led to the Emergency in India.

In the aftermath of the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi’s defeated opponent in Rae Bareli, Raj
Narain, tried to get her election disqualified for commission of corrupt practices. The Allahabad High
Court found that the Prime Minister had committed such practices and disqualified her. To
circumvent this, Mrs. Gandhi introduced all sorts of retrospective laws because of which the
Supreme Court eventually ruled in her favour.

Shanti Bhushan was the lawyer engaged by Raj Narain to argue his case, which allowed a young
Prashant Bhushan to observe the preparations and court proceedings that followed first-hand.
The result was a book published first in 1978 with a foreword by former Chief Justice of India,
M. Hidayatullah. The book has been republished by Penguin Random House India this year with
a new preface by Bhushan, but with its description of the proceedings and judgments of the
Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India unchanged.

The subject of the book is of extreme relevance even today. Recent changes to the law have in
fact made corrupt practices in politics easier, allowing anonymous donations to political parties
through electoral bonds and removing the limit on donations to political parties by corporations.
For those trying to fight such things, this book is a timely reminder that it is possible to stand up
to the mighty, and of how doing so forces even the most powerful person in the country to resort
to desperate measures.

10
CHAPTER 3: STORYLINE

This book deals with in-depth detailing of the case that shook India and ultimately compelled the
then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to impose emergency in 1975 i.e. Indira Gandhi v. Raj
Narain. The emergency was one of the darkest moments in Indian History. It was the time when
democracy and civil liberties were suspended, political dissent was punished with imprisonment
and the press was censored. At the time when country needed the most, judicial system failed. In
the Introduction, the author tells about the happenings of the 26th June 1975. The emergency was
imposed by Indira Gandhi on the night of 25 th June 1975. And it was proclaimed due to the
verdict of the Raj Narain case. It was a case that forever changed the course of our country. It
was as advocate Prashant Bhushan dubbed in this book. On the very day of 26th June 1975, the
streets of Delhi witnessed the arrest of opposition leaders on a large scale. Indira Gandhi
transformed the country from democracy to dictatorship over a night. The reason behind this step
of Mrs. Gndhi was the verdict given by Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Narain v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, two weeks ago. This was the first time that the election of a Prime Minister of
India was declared void by a court of law. Author further gives a brief introduction of the period
of emergency from 26th June 1975 to 20th March 1977. This book can be regarded as a case
history of one of the most important court battles in the history of India. This book also explains
each and every detail of the case proceeding in the Supreme Court which went unreported at that
time due to censorship of press. The arguments have been presented as the author heard and
interpreted them, and therefore the account must have a bias. The author has tried to avoid bias
as much as possible, and whatever bias remains is unavoidable in the circumstances.

1. Preliminary Court Proceedings- This is the first chapter of the book. In this chapter, the
author throws light on the events that led to the filing of petition by Raj Narain, accusing
Indira Gandhi of winning the election by corrupt practices. Initially, this chapter deals
with the period between the electoral battle to court battle between Indira Gandhi and Raj
Narain. On 19 January 1971, the opposition parties which had forged an alliance against
Mrs. Indira Gandhi announced Raj Narain’s candidature from Rae Bareli to oppose Mrs.
Gandhi in the elections of 1972. The election commission allotted the symbol of cow and
calf to the ruling Congress party of Mrs. Gandhi, which led to a dissatisfaction among the
opposition leaders as it was a religious symbol. On 25th January 1971, Mrs. Gandhi’s

11
tour ptrogramme for Rae Bareli was issued for 1st February. In accordance with her tour
plan, Mrs. Gandhi went to Rae Bareli on 1 February to file her nomination papers and she
appointed Yashpal Kapoor as her election agent, who was earlier working as officer on
special duty in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat and had resigned just a few days before.
In the election, Indira Gandhi defeated Raj Narain by more than 1,10,000 votes. The
results shook Raj Narain and he started believing the stories which were being circulated
about chemical treatment of ballot papers. Raj Narain decided to file a petition
challenging Mrs. Gandhi’s election on the grounds of corrupt practices. This was the
background of the court battle which was destined to create history.
Raj Narain engaged Shanti Bhushan as his senior counsel in the case. The petition was
filed in the Allahabad High Court, which accused Indira Gandhi of winning the election
by corrupt practices under the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. It accused Mrs.
Gandhi of procuring the assistance of Yashpal Kapoor for the furtherance of her election
prospects while he was still a gazette officer, bribing Swami Adwaitanand to stand as a
candidate from Rae Bareli, procuring assistance of armed forces of the Union to fly her to
her election meetings in Air Force planes, procuring the assistance of District Magistrate
and police officers of Rae Bareli for erecting barricades and rostrums and making
loudspeaker arrangements for her election meetings, distribution of liquor among the
voters for inducing them to vote for her, using religious symbol of cow and calf, hiring of
vehicles for the free conveyance of voters to and from the polling stations and incurring
expenditure much beyond the prescribed limit of Rs. 35,000 for the purpose of the
election.
Mrs. Gandhi denied that Yashpal Kapoor did any election work for her before
resignation. She also denied the bribery of Adwaitanand. She stated that she travelled in
Air Force planes on the basis of the standing instructions of the Government of India
regarding the travel arrangewments for the Prime Minister. She denied that the
construction of barricades and rostrums was for furthering her election prospects. She
said that they were merely for law and order purposes. She also denied the bribery and
the conveyance of the voters. She further denied that the cow and calf symbol was a
religious symbol and that she exceeded the limit on election expenditure.

12
 Mrs. Gandhi decided to appear as a witness on her own will. The main issues were
whether she held herself out as a candidate prior to 1 February, and whether Yashpal
Kapoor actually resigned on 13 January. When confronted with her additional written
statement that said her constituency was announced by AICC on 29 January, during
cross-examination, she said the statement was drafted in legal language which she had
difficulty in understanding. The headlines in the next day’s newspapers read that ‘PM
cannot follow legal language.’
2. In the High Court- Bhushan first argued on the issue of the Air Force planes. He
submitted that in order to prove the charge of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of
the R.P. Act, he would have to establish that Mrs. Gandhi procured the assistance of Air
Force personnel, and that this assistance was availed for furthering her election prospects.
Counsel argued that there was no doubt that Mrs. Gandhi obtained the assistance of IAF
personnel by asking them to fly her from Delhi to Lucknow in an Air Force plane.
Counsel then contended that this assistance rendered by the IAF did further the election
prospects of Mrs. Gandhi. Bhushan then took up the issue of rostrums and loudspeakers.
The issue was whether at the instance of Indira Gandhi, the DM of Rae Bareli, the
Superintendent of Police of Rae Bareli and the Home Secretary of UP, arranged for
rostrums, loudspeakers and barricading to be set up, and for members of the Police
Forces to be posted in connection to her election tour, and, if so, whether it amounts to a
corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the R.P. Act. Bhushan told that the assistance if
not directly, it has been indirectly procured through Blue Book instructions. He displayed
a letter from the Chief Minister of UP to the Prime Minister, stating that an expenditure
of Rs. 35.08 lakh incurred on security arrangement of the PM was an extremely heavy
burden for the state. Bhushan then argued that the other side contends that these
arrangements were for the security of the PM, not for the furtherance of her election
prospects, but how rostrums and loudspeakers are necessary for her security. Bhushan
then took up the issue of election expenses and challenged the validity of the R.P.
(Amendment) Act of 1974. Counsel then turned to the crucial issue of expenses incurred
on the twenty-three vehicles used for election campaign of Gandhi, however, the return
of her election expenses shows the expenditure on only one jeep. Bhushan then addressed
the court on the issue of when Mrs. Gandhi became a candidate for the election. Counsel

13
contended that Mrs. Gandhi had clearly held herself out as a candidate on 29 December
1970. Counsel cited four newspaper of 30 December 1970, they all carried the news of
Mrs. Gandhi’s press conference headlined, “Prime Minister sticks to Rae Bareli”, etc.
Bhushan then turned to the issue of Yashpal Kapoor’s resignation. Counsel argued that
the other side contends that Mr. Haksaar accepted Kapoor’s resignation on 13 January,
however, he was not competent to accept it. Counsel presented evidence of Kapoor
working for Mrs. Gandhi before 14 January.
The Attorney-General then dealt with the validity of amendment. He argued that it was
within the legislative competence of the Parliament and it does not infringe any
fundamental rights mentioned in the Constitution.
The PM’s counsel argued that the petition has been filed to provide a platform for the
leaders of the grand alliance to malign the Prime Minister and the arguments of the
petitioner have been directed at throwing as much mud as possible. Counsel then took up
the issue of IAF planes and said that Mrs. Gandhi did not obtain the services of Air Force
personnel, and it did not further the prospects of her election. Then the counsel took the
issue of Rostrums and claimed that similar arrangements were also made for the
opposition leaders. Counsel then dealt with the issue of Yashpal Kapoor. Counsel argued
that Haksar as the Principal Secretary was competent accept resignation. Moreover, the
notification in the Gazette shows that the President accepted the resignation on 14
January. Counsel next took up the issue of Gandhi’s holding out as a candidate. Counsel
said that a person could only hold himself out as a candidate after the election was in
prospect. The election became prospect only after the presidential notification calling for
the election was issued on 27 January 1971. Turning to the issue of election expenses, it
was contended that since the expenses alleged in the petition were not specific, but
merely general allegations on wild conjectures, the court could not estimate or add any
expenses to the return filed by the respondent.
The judge acquitted Mrs. Gandhi of corrupt practices on the grounds of the issue of the
Air Force plane. On the issue of rostrums, the judge held Mrs. Gandhi guilty of corrupt
practice. The judge also held that symbol of cow and calf was not a religious symbol.
The judge did not hold Gandhi guilty of corrupt practice in the expenses issue. The judge
concluded that Mrs. Gandhi had held herself out as a prospective candidate from 29

14
 December 1970. And the judge also held that Kapoor’s resignation became effective only
from 25 January 1971.
The Judge held that the election of Mrs. Indira Gandhi void. The judge accordingly also
disqualified her from holding any public office for a period of six years from that date as
provided by the R.P. Act.
3. The Repercussions- The opposition as a whole was overjoyed by the judgement. The
congress expressed confidence in Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership. Congress took the matter to
the Supreme Court and Advocate Palkhivala was selected to argue the appeal. The
newspaper headlines screamed, ‘Court unseats Indira’. The Hindustan Times suggested
the Prime Minister to resign. The western world was pleasantly surprised at the decision,
which was in their eyes an indication of a healthy democracy. The order was stayed by
the Supreme Court.
The opposition leaders were arrested. The press was censored. Newspapers carried blank
editorials. The Times of India managed to insert a small, subtle news item in the obituary
column to evade the eyes of the censor. The obituary said, ‘Died, D.E.M. OCRACY,
mother of Freedom, and daughter of L.I. Berty, on 26 June 1975.’ The international press
reacted very sharply to the events in India. The President issued an order suspending the
right of citizens to move to courts to enforce the fundamental rights given by Articles
14,19 and 22. The Government passed an Election Laws (Amendment) Bill which sought
to amend retrospectively all the corrupt practices on which Mrs. Gandhi’s election had
been challenged. Another bombshell was exploded when a constitutional amendment bill
in Parliament was passed which provided that any dispute arising out of the election of
the President, speaker and the Prime Minister, would only be gone into by a forum
constituted by a special law made by Parliament.
4. Validity of the Constitutional Amendment- Bhushan launched a strong attack against
the amendment. He argued that it was not an amendment of the Constitution at all, and
that if it could be called an amendment at all, it destroyed several basic features of the
Constitution, and that it was passed in an illegal session of Parliament and was hence
infructuous. Bhushan’s next contention was that judicial power could not be exercised by
Parliament in the guise of a constitutional amendment. He further argued that even if it
could be regarded as an exercise of constituent power, it destroyed several basic features

15
of the Constitution. Bhushan went on to submit that the first basic feature effected by the
amendment was judicial review. Proceeding to his next submission, the counsel argued
that if an arbitrary validation of election is possible even though the PM might have
bribed the voters, used undue influence, coerced her rival candidate, then democracy
could well be demolished in the country. Counsel’s next contention was that the
amendment which provides that the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker shall be
valid, was seriously repugnant to the principle of equality, which was a basic feature of
the Constitution. Bhushan’s next contention was that the thirty-ninth Amendment
completely destroyed the rule of law and eliminated judicial review, which were both
essential features of the Constitution. Bhushan also argued that the Monsoon Session of
Parliament in which the Amendment was passed was illegal and that all the business
transacted in that session had hence become illegal and void.
The other side was shaken by the Bhushan’s arguments. Since the validity of a
constitutional amendment was in question, the Attorney- General, Niren De, and the
Solicitor-General, Lal Narain Sinha, were also defending on behalf of the Union
Government. The Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection against Bhushan’s
argument that constituent power did not embrace judicial power. He said the argument
was not raised in Keshavnanda Bharti’s case and hence could not be raised then. De’s
next contention was that the constituent power was the fountain source of all legislative,
executive and judicial powers. For the constituent body, there was no separation of
power. His next contention was that Judicial Review in election matters was not a
constitutional compulsion even before the thirty-ninth amendment. He next contended
that even if judicial review was a basic feature, the thirty-ninth amendment merely
involved an abridgement, not its abrogation. Counsel strongly contested Bhushan’s
submission that equality was a basic feature of the Constitution. The Solicitor General
contended that the amendment did not in any way affect democracy or the concept of free
and fair elections. Sinha also submitted that fundamental rights were not part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
Dealing with Bhushan’s arguments that judicial power could not be exercised by the
constituent body, the PM’s counsel contended that the subject matter of the Constitution
placed no restriction on the amending power. Counsel then advanced another novel

16
 argument. He said that if a particular statute is protected from challenge under Article
14, it does not mean that the right of equality itself has been destroyed. Counsel’s final
submission was that the amendment did not affect the structure of republican democracy,
assuming that was a basic feature of the Constitution.
5. Validity of the Election Law Amendments-Bhushan contended that the validity of the
election law amendments would depend upon their interpretation. Bhushan’s
interpretation of the R.P. Amendment Act, 1974 was the same which he had given in the
Allahabad High Court.
On 7 November, judgement was to be delivered. This case was being seen as the last
chance to overthrow Mrs. Gandhi’s dictatorship. The Chief Justice first dealt with the
constitutional amendment and struck down the constitutional amendment and upheld the
election law amendments. He had accepted the appeal and reversed the High Court’s
decision because of the election law amendments. Justice Khanna also struck down the
constitutional amendment and upheld the election law amendments and had thus declared
Indira Gandhi’s election valid. Justice Mathew too declared constitutional amendment
invalid, upheld the election law amendments and reversed the High Court’s decision. But
Justice Beg did not pronounce judgement on the validity of the constitutional law.
Although he did declare the election law amendments valid. In the last, Justice
Chandrachud also declared the constitutional amendment invalid and the election law
amendments valid.
The Supreme Court judgement was greeted with mixed reaction. While the Opposition
was disappointed , though not unexpectedly so, there were jubilant celebrations at Mrs.
Gandhi’s house.

17
CHAPTER 4: STRENGTHS & FLAWS

Strengths

Right off the bat, the thing that strikes the reader about this book is Bhushan’s almost unique
position of being able to write this book. Court proceedings in India are notoriously opaque –
unlike some other countries, there are no records of proceedings apart from the final judgment.
As we recently highlighted, live tweeting has provided the public with a means to learn about the
happenings inside courtrooms, which is especially useful when one of the parties is the
government or connected with it. At the time, however, such measures were not possible, and in
light of the limits on reporting especially during the Emergency, public knowledge of the case is
minimal.

Prashant Bhushan, on the other hand, was there when the arguments were prepared for Raj
Narain, and was present in court when both sides were arguing their cases in the courts. His
account shows an in-depth understanding of all the small details of the case, including
fascinating references to Alice in Wonderland by the lawyers and the judge in the High Court.

While many lawyers are familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court which eventually went
in Mrs Gandhi’s favour, his description of the High Court case that kicked the beehive in the first
place will be illuminating even for them, and demonstrates how the smallest miscalculations can
have big repercussions.

Bhushan is also aware that this book needs to be read by people without a legal background, and
he takes great pains to make the extremely technical Constitutional and election law arguments
easy to understand. He uses headings and sub-headings to break down the long arguments and
interjects his descriptions of proceedings with helpful asides that explain things for the reader.
Interestingly, at the time he wrote the book, Bhushan had not yet studied law, and perhaps this
helped him make it more accessible to non-lawyers.

18
Flaws

Of course, at the end of the day, Bhushan is not a writer, and this does become apparent over the
course of the book. The first half of the book, and in particular the description of the High Court
proceedings, is, quite frankly, riveting. However, as the book goes on, one realises that Bhushan
does have limited turns of phrase, and what initially seemed crisp descriptiveness becomes
slightly repetitive.

It is perhaps as a result of this that the description of the Supreme Court proceedings becomes
less readable, though as a law student, the researcher found herself engaged thoroughly. It is also
a bit unfortunate that the book does not have a larger section on the aftermath of the case, or a
more detailed critique of the Supreme Court judgment – though this is understandable as the
point of the book is to focus on the case itself, and Bhushan wants to be as unbiased as possible.

19
CONCLUSION

The case was undoubtedly a watershed moment in the constitutional, legal and political history
of India. To read a riveting non-fiction in this form is a privileged experience while keeping in
mind that it is a narrative as seen in first person with the front row seat in the battlefront. Indira
Gandhi was a mother goddess. The book shows how the wily and sharp cross examination of
Shanti Bhushan nailed the lies of this mother goddess in open court. In India we tend to revere
and bend to authority since the British left. Its marvellous to know through this book how few
men kept their backs straight and argued a case which even they did not believe that they would
win. After a lengthy, twisted and exciting trial, the court announced that all the allegations
leveled against Mrs. Gandhi had been proved. Such findings by the court against an incumbent
not only contributed to the development of jurisprudence but also helped changed India’s
political dynamics.

Allahabad High Court’s verdict declared Prime Minister Gandhi’s election void and ordered for
her to be removed from her post. Mrs. Gandhi appealed but the decision remained unchanged
before the Supreme Court of India as well.

The judgment has been viewed worldwide as a bold move by the Indian judicial system.

The Supreme Court’s judgement effectively killed all speculation on the consequences of a
verdict against Mrs. Gandhi. For the Supreme Court too, the Emergency will remain a lesson for
the future.

20
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 “The Case that Shook India” by Prashant Bhushan, Penguin Random House, 2017
Edition.
 https://www.wikipedia.org/
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
 https://archive.is/
 https://www.thehindu.com/

21