With Fear and Favour, The Judiciary and the Emergency

With Fear and Favour, The Judiciary and the Emergency

Emergency sought to reduce judiciary to a cog in Congress’s political machinery
By Hitesh Jain

Why in News?

This week marks a reflective look back on the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975, with a focus on how the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, was subjected to intense political pressure and how institutional independence was compromised to suit the ruling regime. Hitesh Jain, in this op-ed, draws attention to the judicial fallout of the Emergency era and its enduring implications for democratic institutions in India.

Summary of the Issue

• On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in response to a court verdict that declared her election invalid due to electoral malpractice.

• The Emergency allowed for sweeping powers—censorship, suspension of civil liberties, and authoritarian control over institutions, including the judiciary.

• Justice B.G. Kolse Patil’s quote, “The executive cannot become judge, jury, and executioner all at once,” is used to emphasize the erosion of the separation of powers.

• The judiciary’s autonomy was compromised, particularly in how it responded to detention without trial cases, most infamously in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case.

Key Highlights

1. Judicial Subservience and ADM Jabalpur

   • This Supreme Court case remains a dark chapter in Indian judicial history, where most judges held that during Emergency, citizens had no right to approach courts even against illegal detention.

2. The Rule Book Controversy

   • Supreme Court judge Justice Narain had asked the government to disclose a “Rule Book” used for security classification and political directives. The government resisted this disclosure.

3. Misuse of Article 352

   • The Emergency proclamation was accused of misusing Article 352 of the Constitution, which is meant for external threats but was applied internally to suppress dissent and opposition.

4. Law Commission’s Red Flag

   • The Law Commission in its 1951 and 1971 reports expressed concern about the consolidation of executive power and the need for judiciary to remain independent and accountable.

5. Lasting Impacts

   • Although the Emergency ended in 1977, many institutional scars remain. The tendency to politicize judicial appointments, delay case listings, or target judges continues to generate concern.

5 Takeaways

1. The Emergency weakened India’s judicial independence at a structural level.

2. ADM Jabalpur is a reminder of how constitutional rights can be overridden during crises.

3. Article 352 can be misused when there are no checks from the judiciary or civil society.

4. Transparency demands like disclosure of government documents were denied to the judiciary.

5. Even in post-Emergency India, executive overreach into judicial functioning is still debated.

Challenges and the Way Forward

• Challenge 1: Political Interference in Judicial Appointments
  The collegium system needs more transparency, but also insulation from political manipulation.

• Challenge 2: Timely Justice vs Executive Pressure
  Courts often face pressure on how and when to list cases—strengthening independence of the Registry is needed.

• Challenge 3: Need for Internal Reform
  The judiciary must address delayed judgments and inefficient court processes to regain public confidence.

• Way Forward: Codify Judicial Independence
  A judicial accountability law with guaranteed independence mechanisms could prevent future manipulation.

• Way Forward: Protecting Whistleblowers and Judges
  Judges who question government actions need better institutional protection.

Q&A Section

1. What was the ADM Jabalpur case and why is it controversial?
It was a Supreme Court decision during the Emergency that held citizens had no right to approach courts during detention under Emergency laws. It is widely condemned for surrendering civil rights.

2. What was the judiciary’s role during the Emergency?
The judiciary largely failed to check executive excesses and, in some instances, actively supported it.

3. What is Article 352 and how was it misused?
Article 352 allows for Emergency during external aggression, but Indira Gandhi used it to suppress internal dissent and retain power.

4. What is the ‘Rule Book’ issue referred to in the article?
Justice Narain asked for a Rule Book allegedly guiding security classifications. The government refused to share it with the court, highlighting executive overreach.

5. How does this history impact today’s judicial system?
It serves as a reminder to guard against politicization, uphold the separation of powers, and protect individual liberties through independent judiciary practices.

Conclusion
The Emergency era offers crucial lessons about safeguarding judicial independence, resisting executive overreach, and maintaining constitutional integrity. As India progresses, reaffirming these values is essential to ensuring a resilient democracy.