HISTORICAL ALL INDIA

POLITICAL PARTY MEET

Agenda: Discussing the 42nd amendment to the Indian

constitution with special emphasis on the emergency

K Akhilesh PU Somanna Ankit Rath

Chairperson Chairperson Moderator
Letter from the Executive Board
Greetings Members! It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you to
this simulation of Historical AIPPM. I look forward to an enriching
and rewarding experience. Having said that, this background guide
should be the first step towards your research and you are encouraged
to by all means further expand your realm of knowledge by delving
into the themes and sub themes mention in the guide and the reference
provided for further research. Representatives are especially requested
to be well versed with basic principles of the constitution, domestic
law, their party ideology and display character role-play befitting that
of the allocated portfolio. Regardless, whether this is your first time or
one of many conferences, we look forward to impassioned and
rigorous debates in the days to come. Feel free to contact the
Executive Board in case of any doubts/query.
What way the committee decides to take the agenda is up to you. In
the play of politics some of you will gain some of you will lose. What
we do hope you will gain unanimously is, however, experience,
clarity and a better understanding of society, the state and its laws. As
far as learning is concerned, the executive boards of the committees
hope to take away as much from you as you do from the committee.
Nothing would delight us more to have every person in the room
leaving wiser, at the end of the second day. Cheers! Regards

- ANKIT RATH
Moderator
Rules of Procedure
1. The session will begin with Roll call wherein you have to mark your
presence.
2. Remember, there is no concept of PRESENT AND VOTING in this forum.
3. Post the roll call, the committee will enter into the round of Opening
Statements / GSLs. The default time for opening statements shall be 90 seconds.
Opening statements are speeches which are used to clarify your stance on the
agenda at hand.
4. Opening statements are recommended to be given by everyone, though not
obligatory. Opening statements will be done at once, unlike the GSL which
never exhausts.
5. Post the opening statements, we shall be establishing sessions which are of
two kinds – PUBLIC/PRIVATE moderated sessions and unmoderated sessions.
6. A public session is always moderated by the press while a private session can
be moderated as well as unmoderated.
7. A public session is on record while a private session is not.
8. For a moderated session, it is recommended to decide the sub-agendas
beforehand so that we do not waste time in forming a consensus via
unmoderated session and voting.
9. Moderated sessions will be used to discuss sub-agendas pertaining to the
main agenda. The default time for moderated session is 60s per speaker.
10. Unmoderated session will be a lobbying session which can either be done on
the video platform itself or even the WhatsApp group may be utilized for the
same.
11. No POIs by default in public moderated sessions however we can have that
via voting.
12. AIPPM does not have a mandate, hence documentation shall not be
necessary. However, if time permits we may move for a Press Release for the
documentation, which again does not have a specified format.
13. How will you be recognized? In order to get recognized, you can raise the
allotted placard and recognition will be provided
Introduction
The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution was passed by the Indian
Parliament in 1976, during the period of Emergency in India. It was a
controversial amendment that brought significant changes to the Constitution,
and its passage was seen as an attempt to consolidate the power of the ruling
government at the time. Here is a comprehensive guide to the 42nd Amendment
to the Indian Constitution:
1. Background: The 42nd Amendment was passed during a time of political
instability in India. In 1975, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state
of Emergency, suspending civil liberties and cracking down on political
opposition. The 42nd Amendment was passed in this context, and it was seen by
many as an attempt to cement the power of the ruling government.
2. Major Changes: The 42nd Amendment brought several significant changes
to the Indian Constitution. Some of the major changes included:
• The amendment added a new preamble to the Constitution, which emphasized
the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
• It added several new Fundamental Duties for citizens, including the duty to
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, to defend the country, and to
promote harmony.
• The amendment curtailed the power of the judiciary by making it more
difficult for courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
• It also gave the central government more power over state governments,
including the ability to declare a state of Emergency and take over state
governments in certain circumstances.
3. Controversy: The 42nd Amendment was highly controversial when it was
passed, and it remains so today. Critics of the amendment argued that it was an
attempt to consolidate power and curtail civil liberties, and that it undermined
the basic structure of the Constitution. Some of the specific criticisms included:
• The addition of new Fundamental Duties was seen by some as an attempt to
restrict individual freedoms and force citizens to support the government.
• The curtailment of judicial power was seen as an attack on the independence
of the judiciary and a threat to the rule of law.
• The centralization of power was seen as a threat to India's federal system and
the rights of states
4. Repeal: Some of the more controversial provisions of the 42nd Amendment
were later repealed or amended. For example, the Fundamental Duties were
modified to be more in line with the principles of democracy and individual
liberty. The amendment also made it easier for the judiciary to declare laws
unconstitutional. However, many of the centralizing provisions of the 42nd
Amendment remain in place today.

Indian Government in 1976

In 1976, India was under a state of emergency declared by the then Prime
Minister, Indira Gandhi. The emergency was declared in response to a political
and economic crisis in the country and was characterized by a suspension of
civil liberties, censorship of the media, and suppression of political opposition.

During this period, the government had wide-ranging powers, and many of the
democratic institutions and constitutional safeguards were suspended. The
media was tightly controlled, and many journalists and editors were arrested for
publishing critical articles or reports. Political opposition was suppressed, and
many opposition leaders were arrested or imprisoned without trial.

The emergency also saw a significant expansion of the powers of the central
government. The 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution, passed during
this period, increased the power of the central government and reduced the
power of the state governments. The amendment also made changes to the
fundamental rights of citizens and introduced new provisions that were seen as
curbing individual freedoms.

The emergency lasted for 21 months, from 1975 to 1977, and was lifted
following widespread protests and political mobilization against the
government. The period remains a controversial chapter in India's political
history and is seen as a significant challenge to the country's democratic
traditions.

Events leading to the 42nd Amendment

The events leading to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of the Indian
Constitution can be traced back to the political and economic situation in the
country in the mid-1970s. Some of the key events that led to the amendment
are:

1. The declaration of Emergency: In June 1975, then-Prime Minister Indira

Gandhi declared a state of Emergency in the country, citing the need to
maintain law and order. During the Emergency, civil liberties were
suspended, and political opponents were arrested and detained without trial.
2. The government's focus on economic development: During the Emergency,
the government of India emphasized the need for rapid economic
 development, which required strong central control over the economy and
the political system.
3. The political crisis in India: The country was facing a political crisis due to
the increasing demands for autonomy and regionalism from various states.
The central government saw the need to strengthen its powers to tackle this
crisis.
4. The social justice movement: There was a growing social justice movement
in the country that demanded greater rights and opportunities for
marginalized communities, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.

Advantages of the Amendment proposed by the

Government of India in 1976
1. Increased centralization of power: The amendment transferred several
subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, which gave the central
government more control over a wide range of policy areas. This was seen as
necessary to address the political and economic challenges facing the
country at that time.
2. Promotion of socialist and secular values: The amendment added the words
"socialist" and "secular" to the preamble of the Constitution, which reflected
the government's commitment to building a more equitable and inclusive
society.
3. Emphasis on civic responsibility: The amendment introduced fundamental
duties of citizens of India, which emphasized the importance of civic
responsibility and patriotism. This was seen as a positive step towards
building a more engaged and responsible citizenry.
4. Promoting the interests of marginalized sections of society: The amendment
introduced new provisions related to the promotion of educational and
economic interests of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/STs).
This was seen as necessary to address historical inequalities and promote
social justice.
5. Providing stability to the government: The extension of the term of the Lok
Sabha from five to six years provided more stability to the government and
enabled it to implement long-term policies.
Drawbacks of the Amendment stated by the
Opposition in 1976
1. Centralization of power: The amendment transferred several subjects from
the State List to the Concurrent List, which gave the central government
more control over a wide range of policy areas. This was seen as an attempt
to centralize power and reduce the autonomy of state governments.
2. Weakened judiciary: The amendment made it difficult for the judiciary to
challenge constitutional amendments made by the Parliament, which
weakened the independence of the judiciary and curtailed the scope of
judicial review.
3. Curtailed individual freedoms: The amendment introduced new provisions
related to the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, which
curtailed individual freedoms and civil liberties.
4. Reduced accountability of elected representatives: The extension of the term
of the Lok Sabha from five to six years provided more stability to the
government but also reduced the frequency of elections and the
accountability of elected representatives.
5. The erosion of federalism: The amendment curtailed the powers of state
governments and reduced their autonomy, which was seen as a threat to the
principles of federalism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Preamble
The preamble is considered to be a reflection of the constitution. Two additions
were made in the preamble of the constitution. Firstly, the representation that
India is a “Sovereign Democratic Republic ” has been replaced by the
expression “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic”. Secondly, the
expression “unity of the nation” was replaced by the “unity and integrity of the
nation”. Reportedly, this alteration faced a huge backlash across the country in
the legal and public space for being ‘an altered representation of the Indian
Constitution on the international arena’. One of the arguments presented by the
opposers was that the inclusion of words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ was opposed
by the drafting committee chairman Dr. B.R. Ambedkar at the time of preparing
the Constitution as these words denote ‘Marxist socialism’ and ‘western concept
of secularism’ across the world. These expressions are quite different from the
Indian concept of socialism and secularism. Some others opposed this
amendment as being against the principles and the procedure laid down in the
case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Other than these criticisms, the
change in the Preamble was heavily lashed by Mr. H.M.Seervai, an eminent
Indian Jurist, as being ambiguous, and such words are inducted unreasonably.
Judicial Power
Before this amendment, the High Courts had the power even to adjudicate upon
the Acts passed by the Union Legislature. This practice has been very
convenient for the general public to challenge in their respective State’s High
court. But, this amendment restricted the power of the High Court. Under
Article 226A and Article 228A, this amendment allowed HC’s only to adjudge
the validity of State legislation. Similarly, Article 131A was added to empower
the Supreme Court only to look into the validity of central legislation. Apart
from these alterations, another controversial change was brought in the realm of
judicial power by inducting Article 144A and Article 228A into the Constitution.
As per these provisions, it was made mandatory in the Supreme Court to
constitute a sevenjudge bench to decide upon the constitutionality of any law
brought in the Union level and such law can only be held unconstitutional when
the judgment has a two-thirds majority. Evidently, the amendment to the
provisions relating to judicial power was highly condemned. It was seen as
encroaching the power of the judiciary by the legislature and was perceived as
an attack on the doctrine of separation of powers.
Suspension of Fundamental Rights
The Fundamental rights were conferred upon the people uninterruptedly since
the Constitution has come into force. But, the 42nd amendment added the
relevant provisions to the Constitution to suspend Fundamental Rights during
emergencies. Article 358 had the effect of the suspension of rights conferred
under Article 19 of the Constitution without any special announcement
whenever an external emergency is imposed. As per this provision, Article 19 is
suspended for the entire duration of emergency across the whole country, and
immunity is provided to the ‘emergency laws’ in the court of law. Along with
that, Article 359 was amended to that effect where the President can suspend the
right to remedy for the people who are aggrieved by the ‘emergency laws’
inconsistent with any specified fundamental right except Article 20 and Article
21 of the Indian Constitution. As per this provision, such Presidential order can
be made either during an internal emergency or during an external emergency
for a specified time or for the entire emergency time. Here, it is pertinent to
observe that the FR’s are not automatically suspended but their ‘enforceability’
in the court is suspended as per Article 359 of the Constitution. Induction of
Fundamental Duties. The Constitution consisted of specific parts for the
fundamental rights and Directive Principles since the inception of the
Constitution. But, the government and the Swaran Singh Committee believed
that the citizens of this country must also have certain duties towards the State
to have a cordial relationship. Hence, ten fundamental duties in the form of Part
IVA were inducted into the Constitution under the 42nd Amendment of 1976.
But, as it was unfeasible to enforce duties upon the citizens as it contradicts the
whole structure of a democratic country, these were given a nonjudicial and
unenforceable effect. Some of the important fundamental duties are to abide by
the Constitution and its ideals, to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, and integrity
of the country, to protect the environment, to render national service, etc. This
part of the amendment was not considered to be a controversial change as prima
facie seems to protect that national interests.
Directive Principles of State Policy
Unlike the other alterations made concerning other parts, the changes made to
the Directive Principles included both positive and negative criticisms. First of
all, the amendment of Article 31C had become the most controversial provision
concerning DPSP. Though this Article was added through the 25th
Constitutional Amendment of 1971, its scope was expanded through the current
amendment. Previously, this provision had the effect of creating a valid law
under Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) of the Constitution even if such law is
infringing the fundamental rights of the people. While it was perceived to be
unacceptable by lots of the general populace, the 42nd amendment was
introduced by which the scope of Article 31C expanded to such an extent that
any law made as per any DPSP shall be considered as valid even if such law is
violating any fundamental right. Along with this, Article 31D was introduced
for the purpose of legalizing any laws made concerning Anti-National elements
even if such laws are infringing on Article 14 and Article 19. These two changes
regarding the functionality of DPSP had faced numerous negative reactions in
the public arena. The other changes made in the DPSP which were lauded by
the community are the introduction of Article 39-A and alteration in Article
39(f) of the Constitution. As per Article 39-A, free legal aid is to be provided to
the poor and weaker sections of the society to avoid injustice only by the reason
of economic or social backwardness. The pre-existing provision, Article 39(f)
was amended to have an effect of protection against the exploitation and moral,
material abandonment of children and youth. Apart from these changes, certain
inductions such as Article 43A and Article 48F which deal with the workers’
rights and environmental protection respectively were made in Part IV (DPSP)
of the Constitution
Delimination of Parliamentary Seats
The 42nd amendment had frozen the reorganization of boundaries of
parliamentary constituencies till the first census after 2000 i.e 2001, 26 years
from the year of the amendment. It also stopped the reallocation of the
reservation to the SC’s, ST’s, and women till the same period. Before this
amendment, Article 82 provided for the reorganization of constituencies for
parliament and state legislature after every census i.e. every 10 years as per the
data collected. Alteration in Article 74 This amendment made no real change but
it just created a statutory provision to a practice that has been followed in the
country. When we look at the power hierarchy in the country, the President is
the Constitutional Head of the State who is perceived to be nominal and the
Prime Minister is seen as the actual head. Before the amendment in Article 74,
the President used to act in accordance with the advice given by the cabinet
even though such practice is not affected by any provision of the Constitution or
any other law. In such circumstances, this amendment was made only to give
such practice a statutory effect and did not lead to any special change. In
conclusion, the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution was a controversial
and significant change to the country's fundamental law. It brought major
changes to the Constitution, including the addition of new Fundamental Duties,
the curtailment of judicial power, and the centralization of power in the central
government. While some of its more controversial provisions have been
amended or repealed, its legacy remains a subject of debate in India.
Indian Economy in 1976
In 1976, India was a developing country with a mixed economy, characterized
by a combination of private enterprise and state intervention. The Indian
economy was heavily reliant on agriculture, which accounted for a large share
of employment and GDP.

During this period, India had adopted a policy of import substitution

industrialization, which aimed to promote domestic manufacturing and reduce
reliance on imports. The government had nationalized several key industries and
utilities, including the banking sector, and had established public sector
enterprises to drive industrial development.

Despite these efforts, the Indian economy faced many challenges in 1976,
including high levels of poverty, inequality, and inflation. The country also
faced a balance of payments crisis, as the cost of oil imports increased and
exports struggled to keep up.

In response to these challenges, the Indian government had implemented a

number of policies and programs aimed at promoting economic growth and
development. These included efforts to expand agricultural production, improve
infrastructure, and promote exports. The government had also implemented
price controls and rationing to combat inflation.

Overall, while India had made progress since independence, the country faced
many economic challenges in 1976, and significant efforts were needed to
promote sustained and inclusive economic growth.
The Public’s Opinion
The 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution was a highly controversial
move by the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi, and it elicited a wide
range of reactions from the Indian public.

On the one hand, there were those who supported the amendment and saw it as
a necessary move to strengthen the Indian Constitution and promote social and
economic equality. Supporters argued that the amendment introduced several
progressive provisions, such as the establishment of the National Commission
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which helped to advance the cause
of social justice.

On the other hand, there were those who opposed the amendment and saw it as
an undemocratic move that curtailed individual freedoms, weakened the
independence of the judiciary, and undermined the principles of federalism
enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Opponents argued that the amendment was
pushed through by the Congress government, which had an overwhelming
majority in the Parliament, and was aimed at consolidating power and
suppressing political opposition.

Overall, the public opinion on the 42nd Amendment was divided, with
supporters and opponents of the amendment expressing their views in various
forums, including the media, political rallies, and public demonstrations. The
amendment remained a subject of debate and controversy even after its passage,
and its legacy continues to be felt in the Indian political and legal landscape.
ARTICLES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA
Article 358 in The Constitution Of India 1949
358. Suspension of provisions of Article 19 during emergencies
(1) While a Proclamation of Emergency declaring that the security of
India or any part of the territory thereof is threatened by war or by
external aggression is in operation, nothing in Article 19 shall restrict
the power of the State as defined in Part III to make any law or to take
any executive action which the State would but for the provisions
contained in that Part be competent to make or to take, but any law so
made shall, to the extent of the in competency, cease to have effect as
soon as the Proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things
done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect:
Provided that where such Proclamation of Emergency is in operation
only in any part of the territory of India, any such law may be made,
or any such executive action may be taken, under this article in
relation to or in any State or Union territory in which or in any part of
which the Proclamation of Emergency is not in operation, if and in so
far as the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is
threatened by activities in or in relation to the part of the territory of
India in which the Proclamation of Emergency is in operation
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply (a) to any law which does not
contain a recital to the effect that such law is in relation to the
Proclamation of Emergency in operation when it is made; or (b) to
any executive action taken otherwise than under a law containing
such a recital

Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation
of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any 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 the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect
the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in
the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests
of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising
any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or
controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service,
whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise

Article 359 in The Constitution Of India 1949

359. Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III
during emergencies
(1) Where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, the President
may by order declare that the right to move any court for the
enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III (except Article
20 and 21) as may be mentioned in the order and all proceedings
pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so mentioned
shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation
is in force or for such shorter period as may be specified in the order
(1A) While an order made under clause ( 1 ) mentioning any of the
rights conferred by Part III (except Article 20 and 21) is in operation,
nothing in that Part conferring those rights shall restrict the power of
the State as defined in the said Part to make any law or to take any
executive action which the State would but for the provisions
containing in that Part be competent to make or to take, but any law
so made shall, to the extent of the in competency, cease to have effect
as soon as the order aforesaid ceases to operate, except as respects
things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have
effect Provided that where a Proclamation of Emergency is in
operation only in any part of the territory of India, any such law may
be made, or any such executive action may be taken, under this article
in relation to or in any State or Union territory in which or in any part
of which the Proclamation of Emergency is not in operation, if and in
so far as the security of India or any part of the territory thereof is
threatened by activities in or in relation to the part of the territory of
India in which the Proclamation of Emergency is in operation
(1B) Nothing in clause ( 1A ) shall apply
(a) to any law which does not contain a recital to the effect that such
law is in relation to the Proclamation of Emergency in operation when
it is made; or
(b) to any executive action taken otherwise than under a law
containing such a recital
(2) An order made as aforesaid may extend to the whole or any part of
the territory of India: Provided that where a Proclamation of
Emergency is in operation only in a part of the territory of India, any
such order shall not extend to any other part of the territory of India
unless the President, being satisfied that the security of India or any
part of the territory thereof is threatened by activities in or in relation
to the part of the territory of India in which the Proclamation of
Emergency is in operation, considers such extension to be necessary
(3) Every order made under clause ( 1 ) shall, as soon may be after it
is made, be laid before each House of Parliament
Sites for reference :-

https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-forty-second-amendment-act-
1976

https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-
india/amendments/constitution-india-forty-second-amendment-act-
1976

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l40-42nd-Constitutional-
Amendment.html