Because of the 44th amendment

It keeps our democracy safe. By ensuring that an internal emergency has lost its bite

-Even though Indira Gandhi won a massive mandate in the 1971 elections on the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”, her popularity had dwindled by 1975, mainly because of high inflation. The 1971 elections had taken place after she had nationalised banks. The “Garibi Hatao” slogan had led the poor and uneducated to believe that the wealth of the rich that lay in banks would be distributed among them. But no such thing happened. Instead, the prices of essential commodities rose steeply. There was disillusionment in the country.

This was the backdrop of the Allahabad High Court judgment of June 12, 1975. Justice J.L. Sinha not only set aside Gandhi’s election from Rae Bareli, but also disqualified her from contesting elections for six years. There was great jubilation in the country and the poor felt that she had been rightly punished for deceiving them.

Gandhi’s resignation was being demanded all over the country. However, she felt that if she resigned, Jagjivan Ram would take over as prime minister, and even if the Supreme Court, under the chief justice-ship of A.N. Ray, who had been handpicked by her in 1973 and appointed chief justice after superseding three eminent judges, could be persuaded to reverse the HC judgment, Jagjivan Ram would not let her come back as PM.

In such a scenario, she was advised that in order to continue as PM, she had to suppress all dissent and establish a reign of terror. For this, a declaration of internal emergency was necessary. Further, she was told that if an emergency was declared, the government could suspend two important fundamental rights: Articles 19 and 21.

Article 19 conferred on citizens many fundamental rights, including two that are vital for democracy. One was the freedom of speech and expression. The other was the right to assemble peacefully without arms. The suspension of these rights could strangulate democracy and pave the way for the establishment of a dictatorial regime. Article 21 conferred on all persons a fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Hence, no person could be detained or imprisoned without good cause. Even though, on a correct interpretation, this could not mean that a habeas corpus petition would not be heard by the courts even if an arrest were contrary to law or totally mala fide, Gandhi’s advisors were confident that, having packed the SC with loyalist judges, they could manage to get a favourable verdict on this.

This is exactly what happened. Illegal detentions were challenged in nine HCs of the country. The attorney general argued that as Article 21 stood suspended, the HCs did not have the jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions, howsoever illegal the detentions might have been

-