jagmohanlal sinha was the president of india during emergency from 1975-77.
jagmohanlal sinha was the president of india during emergency from 1975-77.
who was the president of india during emergency from 1975-77?
jagmohanlal sinha
during a visit to india in 1976, an arrest warrant was issued for shaikh kutty under the emergency (india) declared by prime minister indira gandhi’s administration mainly (for his translation work with islamic publishing house and probodhanam weekly, the mouthpiece of kerala jamaate). in india, "the emergency" refers to a 21-month period in 1975–77 when prime minister indira gandhi unilaterally had a state of emergency declared across the country. officially issued by president fakhruddin ali ahmed under article 352(1) of the constitution for "internal disturbance", the emergency was in effect from 25 june 1975 until its withdrawal on 21 march 1977.
ahmad kutty
there was widespread opposition building up against the authoritarian acts of prime minister indira gandhi. in the midst of the resulting turmoil, allahabad high court declared her election invalid on grounds of corrupt electoral practice. on appeal, the supreme court of india granted only conditional 'stay' of the order of the high court. the supreme court's order prevented indira gandhi from participating in the proceedings of the lok sabha as a member and prevented her also from voting. she was however entitled as prime minister to participate in the proceedings of both lok sabha and rajya sabha but was prevented from voting. she responded to the challenge by recommending to the president of india that a proclamation be issued declaring that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of india was threatened by internal disturbance. she added in her letter addressed to the president on 25 june 1975 that the matter was extremely urgent, that she would have liked to have taken this to the cabinet but that unfortunately this was not possible that night and recommended that such a proclamation be issued. the presidential proclamation issued as recommended by the prime minister was accordingly dated 25 june 1975. there was no report from the intelligence bureau, state governments or from the union ministry of home affairs to corroborate the facts alleged by her. clearly, the 'emergency' was a means to buttress her position as prime minister. this was followed by censorship of the press. already, the maintenance of internal security act, 1971 (misa) was in place which provided for preventive detention attempts were made to interfere with normal functioning of the courts by arbitrary transfers of judges and other actions designed to pack the courts. the attorney general of india, the government's chief law officer told the supreme court that during the emergency, the fundamental rights including the right to life remained suspended. the court however was unmoved by fears of misuse of powers under emergency. in the famous habeas corpus case (adm jabalpur vs. shivkant shukla), justice chandrachud observed: "counsel after counsel expressed the fear that during the emergency, the executive may whip and strip and starve the detenu and if this be our judgement, even shoot him down. such misdeeds have not tarnished the record of free india and i have a diamond-bright, diamond-hard hope that such things will never come to pass." the commission of enquiry led by justice j c shah later documented how the 'diamond-bright, diamond-hard hope' was belied by setting out a plethora of facts on the arbitrary killings, atrocities and other executive excesses committed under the cover of emergency. h.m. seervai, said: "the press was muzzled, and so were the legislatures, for the acts granting immunity to fair reports of legislative proceedings were repealed, and those proceedings could not be reported. judicial proceedings could not be reported; public meetings could not be held without the permission of the police which was given to "the cringing and the craven" and refused to sober and responsible men; a servile radio and television worked under government orders. again, public opinion, which is the safeguard of freedom, was strangled at birth, for all means of forming and expressing public opinion were suppressed. except in a limited class of cases, grounds of detention were not to be communicated to the detenu and his case was not to be referred to an advisory board, the legislatures were not to be informed about the precise number of people arrested and released, or their whereabouts." ('constitutional law of india – a critical commentary', third edition, appendix iii, para.7.) avenues of legitimate protests were closed under the laws of emergency.
viren j. shah