Working of organs during emergency

This research paper is based on the working of organs (i.e Legislature, Executive and Judiciary)
during the emergency period 1975 , their roles in the decision making process and its impacts
on our political system.

Emergency in 1975 was one of “the darkest periods in our political history

The Emergency refers to a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977. The then President Fakhruddin
Ali Ahmed officially issued it under Article 352 of the Constitution due to prevailing 'internal
disturbance'. The Emergency was in effect from 25 June 1975 until its withdrawal on 21 March
1977.

The national emergency of 1975 was a period of political crisis in India that was declared by
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975. Indira Gandhi, the leader of the Indian National
Congress party and the daughter of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, invoked
emergency powers under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the President the
authority to proclaim a state of emergency if he or she is satisfied that the security of the country
is threatened by internal or external aggression.

The reasons cited for the declaration of the national emergency by Indira Gandhi's government
were the deteriorating law and order situation, economic instability, and threats to national
security. However, the actual motivation behind the emergency was widely seen as an attempt
by Gandhi to consolidate her power and suppress political opposition.

During the emergency, fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution were
suspended, and civil liberties were curtailed. The government imposed censorship on the
media, leading to the suppression of press freedom and freedom of expression. Many
opposition leaders, activists, and journalists were arrested and imprisoned without trial. Political
opponents of the ruling party faced widespread persecution, and dissent was stifled.

Indira Gandhi's government carried out a series of controversial measures during the
emergency, including forced sterilization programs as a means of population control. The
policies implemented during this period were highly criticized for their authoritarian nature and
abuse of power.

The national emergency lasted for a period of 21 months until it was lifted on March 21, 1977,
following the defeat of the Congress party in the general elections held that year. Indira
Gandhi's government was ousted, and she herself lost her parliamentary seat. The emergency
period remains a contentious and controversial chapter in Indian political history, symbolizing a
dark period of democracy being undermined and civil liberties being curtailed.
Several factors led to the declaration of the Emergency:

● Political Turmoil: In the early 1970s, India experienced significant political unrest and
instability. The ruling Congress party faced various challenges, including protests,
strikes, and opposition from political opponents. Indira Gandhi's government was
accused of corruption, mismanagement, and authoritarianism.

● Legal Troubles: In June 1975, the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of
electoral malpractices during the 1971 general elections. The court ordered her to
vacate her parliamentary seat, which could have led to her disqualification from holding
public office for six years.

● The JP Narayan movement, also known as the "Total Revolution" movement, played a
significant role in the events leading up to the declaration of a national emergency The
movement gained momentum in the early 1970s when JP Narayan called for a
"Sampoorna Kranti" or "Total Revolution," advocating for widespread socio-political
change to address corruption, poverty, and other issues plaguing the country. He
criticized the ruling Congress Party, accusing it of authoritarianism, nepotism, and a
disregard for democratic principles

● Government Response: Rather than accepting the court's decision, Indira Gandhi chose
to respond by declaring a state of emergency. She cited internal threats, including
political disorder, as the primary reason for imposing emergency rule.

During the Emergency, the government suspended various fundamental rights, including the
right to freedom of speech, assembly, and expression. Press censorship was implemented,
political opponents were arrested, and civil liberties were severely curtailed. The government
justified these actions as necessary to restore order and implement necessary reforms.

Indira Gandhi's government introduced a series of controversial measures during the

Emergency, such as the forced sterilization program to control population growth and the
demolition of slums and unauthorized settlements. These actions were met with public outcry
and protests.

The Emergency drew widespread criticism from both within India and internationally. Political
opposition, civil society groups, and human rights organizations vehemently condemned the
suppression of civil liberties. Media censorship limited the flow of information, but reports of
human rights abuses and excesses by the government emerged.

In 1977, following widespread public dissatisfaction, the government announced elections and
lifted the Emergency. The Janata Party, a coalition of opposition parties, led by Morarji Desai,
won a landslide victory, and Indira Gandhi's Congress party was defeated. The Emergency
period remains a significant chapter in India's political history, remembered as a time of
curtailed freedoms and political repression
Organs of government:

The organs of government refer to the different branches or institutions that make up a country's
governance structure. These organs are responsible for carrying out various functions,
exercising power, and maintaining the overall functioning of the state. While the specific organs
may vary depending on the country's political system, there are generally three main organs of
government found in democratic nations: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This
division of power is also called 'The Horizontal distribution of power' as all the organs share
different but equal powers, no organ can exercise unlimited powers.

● Executive Branch:
The executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. It is headed by the
head of state, such as a president or monarch, and supported by a group of individuals who
hold executive positions, such as ministers or secretaries. The executive branch is responsible
for making policy decisions, managing the day-to-day operations of the government, and
representing the country at national and international levels.

● Legislative Branch:
The legislative branch is responsible for creating and passing laws. It consists of a
representative body, often called a parliament or congress, where elected officials come
together to debate and vote on proposed legislation. The legislative branch plays a crucial role
in representing the interests of the people, overseeing the executive branch, and ensuring the
checks and balances of power.

● Judicial Branch:
The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting and applying laws. It consists of the court
system, including various levels of courts, such as trial courts, appellate courts, and a supreme
court. The judiciary is independent of the other branches and acts as a check on their actions.
Its main function is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice, resolving disputes,
and upholding the constitution and the rule of law.
 JUDICIARY
A. What is judiciary?
The judiciary is the part of the government that interprets the law, decides disputes, and delivers
justice to all citizens. The judiciary is seen as the watchdog of democracy and the custodian of
the Constitution. The judiciary is critical to sustaining the rule of law, protecting individual
rights, and ensuring the country's justice.

The Indian judiciary is organized in a hierarchical structure, with the Supreme Court at the top,
followed by High Courts in each state and subordinate courts at the district and lower levels. The
judiciary has judicial review authority, which permits it to analyze the legality of laws and
governmental actions.

The Supreme Court of India is the country's highest judicial authority. It is composed of a Chief
Justice and a set number of other judges appointed by Parliament. The Supreme Court has
exclusive jurisdiction over issues between the federal government and state governments, as well
as between separate states. It also has appellate jurisdiction, hearing appeals from High Court
decisions. and other specialized tribunals.

The High Courts of India are located in several states and union territories. They hold original
jurisdiction over cases within their jurisdictions and hear appeals from lower courts. The High
Courts also have judicial review authority.

Subordinate courts, which include district courts, sessions courts, and various inferior courts, are
located beneath the High Courts. Within their territorial jurisdictions, they handle civil and
criminal cases. In India, the judiciary has the authority to interpret laws, preserve fundamental
rights, enforce separation of powers, and act as a check and balance on the other arms of
government. It is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights and liberties.

B. What are the prime functions of the judiciary?

The judiciary in India serves various important functions, including ensuring the proper
operation of the legal system and upholding the values of justice and the rule of law. The
following are the primary functions of the Indian judiciary:

Adjudication: The judiciary's principal role is to adjudicate disputes and give justice. It hears
cases, examines evidence, applies the law, and issues verdicts or judgements. Civil disputes,
criminal cases, constitutional issues, and administrative difficulties are all included.All legal
disagreements end up in court, where the judges ensure that the aggrieved party receives justice.
When their fundamental rights are violated, residents can petition the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226. This demonstrates the court system's aim to
provide justice and eliminate injustice as soon as possible. The courts have repeatedly recognised
the need for justice and stood up for what is right, even if it meant going against the majority in
order to bring justice to the minority. For example, in the Sabarimala case, despite widespread
resistance, it was found that women could not be barred from accessing the temple.

Law Interpretation and Application: The judiciary enforces laws that have been passed by
Parliament. The Parliament enacts substantive and procedural legislation in a certain area, and
the court is supposed to interpret and apply the legislation correctly. If the terms in the statute
were interpreted literally, the situation in hand would sometimes be subjected to injustice. In
some cases, the courts have the authority to change the meaning of the statute to fit the facts of
the case. For example, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Financial
Company (1967), the High Court amended the meaning of a clause in the Opium Act, 1950 in
order to prevent harm from being done to the vehicle's owner.

Judicial Review: When it comes to preventing Parliament from implementing legislation that
undermine people' fundamental rights, India's court is quite active. Any law that violates people's
rights is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and that law is repealed. This authority
would have been limited if it had only been applicable when a case went to court. However, it is
not limited because the Court can take suo motu cognizance and review the rules and legislation
enacted by Parliament. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), for example, the Supreme
Court ruled that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unconstitutional. As a result,
the judiciary protects the constitution and citizens' fundamental rights.

Law-making: In India, the primary legislative body is the Parliament. Bills are introduced in
Parliament and become law following a lengthy procedure that involves votes in both Houses
and the President's consent. However, it is not the exclusive law-making body, despite being
responsible for the vast bulk of legislation in force today. In India, the judiciary has the authority
to make laws as well. The Supreme Court accomplishes this by the issuance of judgements,
which are binding on all lower courts. When hearing cases, lower courts must adhere to the
Supreme Court's precedents.

Lower court supervision: Article 227 of the Indian constitution grants high courts supervisory
powers. According to this, the High Courts can supervise the operation of all courts and tribunals
under their jurisdiction, with the exception of courts and tribunals established by legislation
dealing with the military services. Aside from administrative supervision, the High Courts can
exert judicial superintendence over their subordinate courts at the request of any aggrieved party
or on their own initiative. When necessary, it can transfer matters from subordinate courts to
itself.

Arbitrator: According to Article 131, the Supreme Court acts as an arbitrator in disputes between
states or between a state and the federal government. For example, in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Union of India (1977), it was determined that the Centre can issue directives to a
state as a legal body rather than a geographical unit under Article 256.

Advisory: The judiciary has advisory authority under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. The
President of India has the authority to submit cases to the Supreme Court when there is a major
question of law or a matter of public significance. The President is not bound by this
recommendation.
Inquiries by the courts: In India, the judiciary has the authority to form inquiry commissions to
look at issues that require expert assistance. This authority is used when the government or the
executive has acted recklessly in a significant situation. For example, the Supreme Court
established an inquiry commission to look into an encounter of arrested people with police in
Hyderabad. The commission's report was presented to the Supreme Court and made public in
May 2022.

Fundamental Rights Protection: The judiciary serves as the custodian of fundamental rights
established by the Constitution. It protects the fundamental rights to life, liberty, equality, free
expression, religion, and other fundamental rights by providing remedies to those whose rights
have been violated.

Protecting the Constitution: The judiciary is critical in defending the supremacy of the
Constitution. It ensures that all government laws and activities are in accordance with the
requirements of the Constitution. The judiciary has the authority to overturn laws that are judged
to be unconstitutional.

Dispute Resolution: The judiciary settles disputes between individuals, organizations, and
various levels of government. It serves as a platform for the peaceful resolution of disputes,
whether civil, criminal, or administrative in character.
Precedent Setting: Judicial decisions serve as legal precedents that are binding on lower courts.
Precedents aid in the application of laws by maintaining consistency and predictability.

Contempt of Court: The judiciary has the ability to hold individuals or entities in contempt of
court if they defy or undermine the court's authority. This authority aids in the preservation of the
judiciary's dignity and authority.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Indian judiciary has adopted the notion of PIL, which
allows individuals or groups to seek judicial involvement in situations of public concern. PIL has
been critical in tackling social issues, conserving the environment, and guaranteeing public
officials' responsibility.

The selection of judges: The Collegium system is used in India to choose, elevate, or transfer
judges. The Collegium system arose as a result of Supreme Court decisions such as the 'Four
Judges' Case. It is led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and includes four other senior High
Court justices. A collegium of High Court judges follows a similar pattern. The Supreme Court
Collegium makes recommendations to the government for appointments, while the High Court
Collegium makes recommendations to the CJI and the SC Collegium for approval, which is then
passed to the government for appointments.

This system emerged over the course of 34 years as a result of three cases. These subsequent
"The Four Judges' Cases" became well-known. The first of these lawsuits was resolved in 1981.
In this case, it was decided that the Executive might decline the Chief Justice of India's (CJI)
recommendation on the appointment and transfer of judges. This meant that the executive had
more say over the transfer and appointment of judges. The Supreme Court created the Collegium
system in the second case, decided in 1993. It was observed that the CJI's opinion was made not
solely by his own judgment, but rather by the collective view of the CJI and two other senior-
most Supreme Court judges. In the year, the third case involving this topic was decided.
When the SC increased the Collegium from three to five members in 1998. It was made up of the
CJI and four of the Supreme Court's most senior judges. The fourth and last lawsuit, determined
in 2015, involved the invalidation of the 99th Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional.

By performing these functions, the Indian judiciary serves as a critical pillar of the democratic
system, assuring the preservation of rights, supporting the rule of law, and providing citizens
with justice.

C. Decisions taken during emergency

During the Emergency in India, which lasted from 1975 to 1977, several significant decisions
were taken by the Indian judiciary

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, is
one of the most notable decisions made during the Emergency. The Supreme Court of India ruled
that during the Emergency, individuals could not approach the courts for the enforcement of their
fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, through habeas corpus
petitions. The judgment upheld the government's position that even if a person's detention was
illegal, it would not be reviewable by the courts during the Emergency. This decision was widely
criticized for undermining the judiciary's role as a protector of individual rights.

Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980): Although this case was decided after the end of
the Emergency, it had significant implications for the legality of certain actions taken during that
period. The Supreme Court held that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution
under Article 368 was not unlimited. It ruled that the basic structure of the Constitution, which
includes fundamental rights, could not be altered. This judgment reaffirmed the importance of
fundamental rights and limited the scope of constitutional amendments.

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): Although this case was not directly related to
the Emergency, it is worth mentioning because it established the doctrine of the basic structure of
the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any provision of the
Constitution but not in a way that would destroy or damage its basic structure. This decision laid
the foundation for subsequent judgments that protected the fundamental rights of individuals
during the Emergency.

Raj Narain vs. Indira Gandhi (1975): In this case, the Supreme Court found Indira Gandhi guilty
of electoral malpractices during the 1971 general elections. The court declared her election to the
Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) void and barred her from holding any elected office for
six years. This judgment played a role in exacerbating the political crisis that led to the
imposition of the Emergency.
D. Analysis of the decisions taken
ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This decision was highly controversial and criticized
for its impact on individual rights. The Supreme Court's ruling that individuals could not
approach the courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights through habeas corpus
petitions during the Emergency undermined the judiciary's role as a protector of those rights. By
upholding the government's position that even illegal detentions were not reviewable, this
decision restricted judicial oversight and eroded the principle of judicial independence.

Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980): Although this case was decided after the
Emergency, it had significant implications for actions taken during that period. The Supreme
Court's ruling that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that
the basic structure of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, could not be altered,
reaffirmed the importance of protecting fundamental rights. This judgment curtailed the scope of
constitutional amendments, ensuring a check on the powers of the executive and legislature.

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): While not directly related to the Emergency,
this case established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, which had subsequent
implications during the Emergency. The Supreme Court's decision that Parliament could amend
the Constitution but not in a way that would damage its basic structure provided a safeguard
against arbitrary changes to fundamental rights and democratic principles. This judgment laid the
foundation for protecting individual rights during the Emergency.

Raj Narain vs. Indira Gandhi (1975): This case resulted in the Supreme Court finding Indira
Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices and declaring her election to the Lok Sabha void. The
judgment played a role in exacerbating the political crisis that eventually led to the imposition of
the Emergency. While not a direct decision related to safeguarding individual rights during the
Emergency, it showcased the judiciary's independence and willingness to hold those in power
accountable for their actions.
 CONCLUSION
To conclude, During India's 1975 emergency, the three branches of government—the Executive,
the Legislature, and the Judiciary—all had various roles in dealing with the situation. When then-
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed an emergency under Article 352 of the Indian
Constitution, alleging internal unrest, the three organs played unique responsibilities:

The Executive branch, led by the Prime Minister, was key to the declaration and implementation
of the emergency. Indira Gandhi's government utilised its executive powers to restrict civil
liberties, enforce press censorship, and imprison political opponents without trial. During this
time, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet exercised significant authority over the country's
operations.

The Legislature, which included the Parliament of India, performed a restricted role during the
emergency. The Parliament was halted shortly after the declaration, and several opposition
lawmakers were detained or placed under house detention. The administration used its majority
in Parliament to approve the 39th Amendment to the Constitution, which intended to limit
judicial scrutiny and the power of the judiciary.

During the emergency, the judiciary faced considerable problems and pressures. The government
took measures to limit judicial independence and court power. The Supreme Court, on the other
hand, played an important role in defending constitutional rights and reining in the executive's
excesses. The Supreme Court declared in the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant
Shukla (commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case) that under the emergency, citizens had no
right to seek the courts to enforce their fundamental rights. This ruling was widely condemned
and represented a low moment in India's history of judicial intervention.
Overall, during India's 1975 emergency, the Executive exercised enormous influence, the
Legislature was mostly ignored, and the Judiciary suffered threats to its independence and
authority. The emergency was abolished in 1977, ending a period of political upheaval and civil
liberties repression in the country.