Source: https://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/04/06/1975-1977-emergency-some-legal-recollections-from-scc-archives/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:20:03+00:00

Document:
by Ashok H. Desai, Senior Advocate, Former Attorney General for India.
The declaration proclaimed on 25-6-1975 under Article 352(1) of the Constitution that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbance was the declaration of a phoney emergency. Its real cause was the erosion of Smt Indira Gandhi’s hold on power. The occasion to declare it on that day was adverse decisions of courts. On 12-6-19751, in the election petition filed by Raj Narain, Jagmohan Lal Sinha, J. of the Allahabad High Court had found her guilty of corrupt practices. The Supreme Court had risen for its summer vacation and Krishna Iyer, J. happened to be the Vacation Judge. On the very day of the decision, the Judge received a curious telephone call from the Law Minister H.R. Gokhale (popularly known as Balasaheb) that he wanted to call on the Judge. On inquiry, Mr Gokhale mentioned that it was about the verdict in the Prime Minister’s case. The Judge declined to meet him but advised him to file an appeal and seek an early hearing. At the hearing on 24-6-1975, her Counsel Nani Palkhivala pressed for a complete stay urging that otherwise the very legitimacy of the Prime Minister would become an issue. The Judge, however, followed the established practice and granted only a limited stay. (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain2.) So now the citizens of India had the protection of a “double emergency” because from 3-12-1971 we were already governed by an earlier Proclamation that an emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression.
At 9.30 p.m., on the night of 25-6-1975, the Proclamation was sent to President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. No Cabinet meeting had been held to discuss the matter much less to approve of the measure. Smt Gandhi evidently wanted even her colleagues to face a fait accompli. The President also did not insist on a cabinet meeting but was persuaded to sign the midnight Proclamation. It is a historic irony that the order of a Judge keen on preserving the rule of law provided the excuse for its suspension.
The Report of the Shah Commission and now the book The Emergency by Smt Coomi Kapoor shows that the actual preparation for an internal emergency had started much earlier. Smt Gandhi was being advised by a core group close to her viz. Siddhartha Shankar Ray (the Chief Minister of West Bengal), D.K. Barooah (the Congress President), Rajni Patel, Chairman of the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee and Balasahab Gokhale, the last two being the contribution of the Bombay Bar. A declaration of emergency necessitates an elaborate administrative legal framework. An earlier model was already available in the Defence of India Act and various subsidiary orders thereunder. The list of proposed detenus which was being prepared from as early as January 1975 had to be updated. One critical declaration now invoked was under Article 359(1) which denied anyone to move any court for enforcement of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 21 and 22.
This passage was creatively used by the Judges to give far-reaching reliefs to the detenu. The Court permitted the detenu to get their own food, reading material and to receive visitors. These were precious rights which kept up their spirits. There was the case of Smt Mrinal Gore, who was lodged in a grim cell with a leper and thereafter a lunatic on the excuse that no other “accommodation” was available. Her conditions were dramatically improved by court orders.
The Court further accepted the submission that the writ of habeas corpus meant “produce the body” and that therefore at every hearing, the detenu must be kept present in court. This gave a precious opportunity to the detenus to come to the courtroom in Mumbai and meet their friends. The most memorable instance was when the Court ordered hearings on the same day for two different petitions viz. of Madhu Dandavate and his wife Pramila who were lodged in different jails. The court hearings enabled them to meet in the rather unromantic corridors of the Bombay High Court.
It must be added that so far as availability of lawyers was concerned, the Government often found itself in a quandary. Many lawyers declined to appear for the Government in cases affecting civil liberty and the Government could not always get the legal assistance that it desired. There was loose talk that the counsel constantly appearing against the Government would also be detained. The Maharashtra Government, however, did not detain any lawyer unless he was undertaking forbidden political activities.
Similarly, when the order of detention against Ram Jethmalani was challenged, a large number of lawyers appeared for the petitioner. The detention was stayed and we were all hopeful that the Supreme Court would recognise at the least the minimal right that no Indian could be deprived of his life or liberty except according to the letter of the law especially when the provisions were harsher. I recall how during the earlier emergency, a Law Officer had sought7 to argue before the Supreme Court that if Article 21 was suspended, the citizen would be left with no rights of life or liberty. Mathew, J. pointedly asked whether before the Independence, a British officer could oppress or kill an Indian without the support of any specific law. Surely, an Indian could not be worse off after the Independence and lose his rights because “fundamental rights” which were conferred in 1950 were subsequently suspended.
The Bombay High Court was taking the view that during the emergency the validity of a law may not be examined but the text of the law could not be abandoned and had to support government order. This view was particularly helpful in detention and in press censorship cases. For instance, Madon, J. had struck down8 the censorship order served on the monthly “Freedom First” observing to the effect that the objections urged by the censor were unrelated to any of the purposes or objects of the censorship order that most of the consequences contemplated were fanciful and far-fetched and the view taken was such as no person acting rationally could ever possibly take. Several High Courts had taken a similar view.
On 28-4-1976, when the decision in ADM, Jabalpur7 was pronounced in the Supreme Court, I carried a copy of the judgment to Mumbai for the prompt information of Ram Jethmalani who would now became an absconder (ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla7). When I read it on the flight, I could not believe that the Judges by a majority led by Ray, C.J. and Beg, J. and unexpectedly joined by Chandrachud, J. and Bhagwati, J. (but with a strong dissent of Khanna, J.) had declared that the right to life and liberty was not available during the emergency since Article 21 itself got suspended. The majority judgment relied on the wartime decision of the majority of the House of Lords in Liversidge v. Anderson9 disregarding the ringing dissent of Lord Atkins.
The decision in ADM, Jabalpur7 had a drastic impact on petitions for habeas corpus. During this period, the matters relating to emergency in the Supreme Court were placed before the First Court. Unlike his normal court demeanour Ray, C.J. was clearly hostile to lawyers who argued for civil liberties. I have an ironic memory of a matter which can be called “the case of the hungry jailor”. Our client was detained in the jail in Agra and was entitled to get his own food. His tiffin box used to be scrutinised by the security staff who evidently relished chicken dishes which were appropriated during the checking. We moved the Supreme Court to enforce his rights under the rules. At the first hearing, I discovered that an impressive-looking tall gentleman was sitting in the First Court when we assembled. The Chief Justice mentioned that “he was pleased to welcome Sir Robert Kerr, the former Chief Justice and now the Governor General of Australia”. I felt that Ray, C.J. would not deny my client some relief, particularly in the august presence of the foreign visitor. As soon as the case was called out, I mentioned the need for observing the conditions of detention strictly and the guest looked interested in the matter. The Chief Justice thereupon delivered a homily partly addressed to the audience that all detenus must be treated in the best possible way. He addressed the Solicitor General, “Mr Sinha, I shall adjourn the matter only for a day. Tell us promptly tomorrow what is the actual position in the Agra Jail and what you propose.” Alas! the next morning, the mood was completely transformed. When the matter was called out, I expressed the confident hope that the learned Solicitor General had received his instructions and would give us the good news. Before Mr Sinha could respond, the Chief Justice said, “What good news? First tell me what is your locus to file this writ petition.” And we were unceremoniously bundled out.
Ray, C.J. later presided over the Bench which despite a powerful argument by Homi Seervai reversed10 the Bombay judgments11 on the conditions of detention including in the case of Smt Mrinal Gore.
In a little while, while all critical remarks against the Government became muted and the media became compliant. The Government now had illusions about its popularity. The debacle in the General Elections of 1977 took it by complete surprise. The Supreme Court had to face the heaviest criticism in its history for letting down citizens during the emergency. “Never again” was the call in civil liberty meetings like the meeting of Citizens of Democracy. It must be noted that the objective was partially achieved by the 44th Constitutional Amendment of 1978 which also amended Article 359. Under the then existing provisions, once an emergency was proclaimed, Articles 20 and 21 which guarantee life and liberty of citizens could be suspended. The solution adopted by the 44th Amendment was to ensure that no Government in future could suspend these rights which now become non-derogable. It must be fairly added that in a remarkable swing of the pendulum, the Supreme Court has thereafter enlarged the concept and the application of Article 21 well beyond what was ever contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. At least in this area, the lessons of the emergency have been learned.
51. This Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has to deal with many judgments of the High Courts and the Tribunals in which the High Courts or the Tribunals, on an erroneous perception of facts and law, have rendered decisions in breach of human rights of the parties and this Court corrects such errors in those judgments. The instances of this Court’s judgment violating the human rights of the citizens may be extremely rare but it cannot be said that such a situation can never happen.
52. We can remind ourselves of the majority decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in ADM, Jabalpur Shivakant Shukla7. The majority opinion was that in view of the Presidential Order dated 27-6-1975 under Article 359(1) of the Constitution, no person has the locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ to enforce any right to personal liberty of a person detained under the then law of preventive detention (Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971), on the ground that the order is illegal or mala fide or not in compliance with the Act (see SCC paras 78 and 136 of the Report).
The suggestion that the Supreme Court judgment can be violative of fundamental rights is an unusual one. It, however, shows the great doubt that is constantly entertained about the reasoning in ADM, Jabalpur7. The last words can be left to Seervai to record his views on Liversidge9 and ADM, Jabalpur7.
† Written on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Bombay Bar Association.
1. Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Election Petition No. 5 of 1971, decided on 12-6-1975 (All).
2. (1975) 2 SCC 159.
3. “Mr Justice P.M. Mukhi” (1976) 78 Bom LR J-1.
4. (1969) 1 SCC 562.
5. Id., 567, para 9.
6. (1976) 78 Bom LR 1.
7. ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.
8. Binod Rao v. Minocher Rustom Masani, 1976 SCC OnLine Bom 100.
9. 1942 AC 206 (HL).
10.Union of India v. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde, (1977) 1 SCC 834.
11. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde v. K.G. Paranjpe, 1975 SCC OnLine Bom 95; Ramesh Ramlal Narang v. C.T.A. Pillai, 1975 SCC OnLine Bom 94; Prabhudas Tribhavandas Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 SCC OnLine Bom 97 and others.
13.1966 Supp SCR 464 : AIR 1967 SC 483 : 1967 Cri LJ 520.
14.(1966) 2 SCR 406 : AIR 1966 SC 657.
15. (1994) 5 SCC 54, 81, para 34.
16. (2010) 14 SCC 209 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 727.
18. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Third Edn.) pp. 1053 and 1048.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.