Tag: #democracy

RV Raveendran: Legislation from the British Era Cannot be Used to Suppress Dissent

Posted on

Former Supreme Court Justice (retired) R.V. Raveendran has stated that legislative restrictions employed by the British to suppress the independence movement should not be applied in a democracy. In response to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s recent assertion that criminal laws, including anti-terror provisions, are unconstitutional, It should not be used to suppress dissent, Justice Raveendran remarked, adding that while such legislation may be necessary, they should not be utilized to suppress dissent in a democracy.

The public’s trust in the judiciary, according to Justice Raveendran, is incredibly important. “The sovereignty of the judiciary does not lie in determining cases or enforcing sentences,” Justice Raveendran remarked, “but it is the public trust in the court that matters.” Democracy can endure and thrive as long as the judiciary maintains its credibility, he argued, but if the court loses its credibility, democracy’s survival is jeopardized. “I believe that the judiciary is capable of addressing and resolving contemporary issues, as well as providing the best possible service to society,” he said.

According to Justice Raveendran, wealthy people hire better lawyers, fight their cases better, and have a better chance of succeeding because their cases are presented in a better manner, whereas the system allows for appeals, reviews, and curative petitions since the poor who do not have access to the best lawyers and are unable to defend their case. When it comes to the issues, they must be watchful and make swift decisions. “When a matter involving a wealthy individual comes up, the court should be cautious not to be swept away by misleading evidence,” Justice Raveendran stated. And, if a poor person’s case is brought up, the court should be aware that he is unable to state his case adequately and ensure that he is treated fairly.

In response to the pending cases, Justice Raveendran suggested that alternative dispute resolution options be encouraged.

Former Chief Justice of India Justice K. G. Balakrishnan observed that while the diversity of laws is not a major problem, the multiplicity of authority generated by the laws is. On obsolete legislation, Justice Balakrishnan suggested that a highly efficient group of top professors and jurists be formed to create appropriate amendments.

When prompted why similar instances before benches and judges may result in different rulings, sentencing, and penalties, he responded that every judge has some personal prejudice and their ideology at play. An experienced judge, on the other hand, would know what the appropriate penalty is.

-Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

The Dark Days in Indian Democracy

Posted on

Introduction

Emergency marks the dark chapters of History in India.

India is the world’s largest democracy with one well-defined Constitution that provides ironclad protection of our fundamental rights, but this same protection was challenged in an unprecedented manner. On this very day, 46yrs ago in 1975, Indians woke up to hear that the elected government led by Indira Gandhi proclaimed an eternal emergency. The announcement marked an immediate suspension of Fundamental rights, civil liberties were curbed, elections suspended, and voices of the dissents silenced for a period that lasted for 21months. Opposition leaders and others were jailed, habeas corpus was suspended, and censorship was imposed on the newspapers. June 26, 2021, marked the 46th year of that announcement.

Emergency was a seminal event in the history of Independent India. President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared an emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on the recommendation of Indira Gandhi in response to widespread “internal disturbance,” and it was imposed from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. On June 25, 1975, the Government declared that there was a threat of internal disturbances, and thus, it invoked Article 352 of the Constitution. Under this article, the Government could declare a state of Emergency on the grounds of external threat or a threat of internal disturbances.

The Consequences of the imposition of the Emergency

Provisions of Emergency grants the Executive certain special powers that the Government decided to put into effect and suspended the freedom of the press. Moreover, strikes were banned, and many opposition leaders were put in jail.

Press censorship was also imposed, and the newspapers were asked to get prior approval before publishing any material.

Most significantly, the fundamental rights were snatched away from the citizens, including the right to move the Court for restoring their basic rights. The provision of Preventive detention was also used extensively, and people were arrested and detained based on the ground that they may commit an offense.

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench overruled the High Courts in April 1976 and approved the Government’s plea. It meant that the Government might take away a citizen’s right to life and liberty during an emergency.

Many new amendments to the Constitution were also enacted by Parliament. Following the Allahabad High Court’s decision in the Indira Gandhi case, an amendment was introduced stating that the Prime Minister, President, and vice President could not be challenged in Court. During the Emergency, the forty-second amendment was also passed.

Types of Emergency

  • National Emergency – When the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war, external attack, or armed insurrection, the President can proclaim a   national emergency under   Article   352.   When    a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression,’ it is known as ‘External Emergency.’
  • State Emergency – Article 356 of the Constitution grants the President the authority to act only if he believes that a situation has developed in which the Government of a State cannot be carried on, in conformity with the Constitution’s provisions.
  • Financial Emergency– Article 360 authorizes the President to declare a Financial Emergency if he believes a situation has emerged that jeopardizes India’s financial stability or credit in any area of the country.

44th Amendment

Specific changes were made in Article 352 under the 44th Amendment, which substantially altered the emergency provisions, and some changes were also restored, which were established by the 42nd Amendment.

  • As per Article 352, the term “internal disturbance” was superseded by “armed rebellion.”
    • An emergency can be proclaimed only after receiving the confirmation of the crisis by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
    • The Houses must proclaim the Emergency within one month.
    • Every six months, the Houses must re-approve to continue Emergency.
    • An emergency can be bypassing resolutions to that effect by a simple majority of the houses present and voting. A resolution can be moved by a tenth of a house’s members.
    • Article 358 states that Article 19 is only suspended upon war or

external aggression and not upon armed rebellion. Furthermore, any law that breaches Article 19 must recite that it is connected to Article 358. If a law violates Article 19, it can still be contested.

  • Article 359 states that the suspension of the right to move courts for

violations of Part III won’t include Articles 20 and 21.

  • The term of Lok Sabha from 6 to 5 years was reversed back.

Case Laws

Minerva Mills and Ors vs. UOI and Ors

In Minerva Mills and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court held that just because the Court would require to examine a political problem, it will not step back from carrying out its constitutional role. The Supreme Court, with great precision, detailed its authority to review the President’s Proclamation of Emergency.

State of Rajasthan vs. UOI (1977)

On March 24, 1977, the Janata party secured the verdict of the electorate and formed the new Government at the Centre. This was an unprecedented event since, for the first time in the history of the country, the ruling party at the Centre was not in power in any of the federating States – Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. On the date that the Janata Party took office, Congress (R) was in power in various States. The Congress also lost its majority in the Lok Sabha as a result, which the Government at the Centre was formed by the Janata Party in coalition with the Congress for Democracy. On April 17, 1977, the Union Home Minister sent letters to the Chief Ministers of nine states asking them to advise their Governors to dissolve their respective legislatures and seek new mandates. Suits were filed by six of these nine states stating that the letter and the radio broadcast of the Law Minister constituted a clear-cut threat of dissolution of the Assemblies and disclosed grounds that are prima facie outside the purview of Article 356 of the Constitution.

According to Article 356 of the Constitution of India, the President can cease  from the Union the legislative and executive powers of any state “if he is satisfied that a situation has emerged in which the state’s administration cannot be carried out within the Constitution’s provisions.”

The Supreme Court held that one could not challenge the satisfaction of the President except because it has exercised malafide or irrelevant grounds.

Therefore the suits were upheld and dismissed by the Court.

Conclusion

The period of Emergency was the darkest phase in India’s tenure. On January 24, 1978, at a public meeting in Yavatmal, Indira Gandhi even apologized for the excesses committed during the Emergency and declared she was taking “the entire responsibility for the same.”

The Emergency ended, resulting in a defeat of the Congress in the Lok Sabha elections of 1977. The most precious lesson learned from Emergency is that the 1977 Lok Sabha elections were announced as soon as the Emergency got over. The 1977 elections became a referendum on the Emergency’s influence, at least in North India, where it was most felt. The opposition campaigned on the slogan “Save Democracy.” The people’s judgment was decisively against the Emergency. The experience of the entire period of Emergency from 1975 – 77 ended up strengthening the foundations of democracy in India.

This article is written by Shruti Bose student of Christ (Deemed to be University), Lavasa.

This article is edited by Shreya Litoria, a student of Banasthali Vidpyapith University, Jaipur.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

“Is Freedom of Speech and Expression a Reality or Myth?”

Posted on

The Present article has been written by Shrey Hasija, a 1st-year student of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU.

INDIA is a democratic country, and democracy is built on the right of people to express themselves, at least in part. In all democratic societies, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right; it is crucial in decision-making at all levels. When this fundamental human right is jeopardized, people become extremely emotional and will go to great lengths to safeguard it. This can cause social instability and possibly have bad economic consequences. Some feel that freedom of speech should be limited to a certain degree. However,  for a country to be deemed free, its citizens must be able to express their opinions.

Our generation has the luxury of freely expressing ourselves and posting it on the internet. But, how many of us value the opportunity to listen to, speak about, write about, and film what we love? Many governments around the world make it tough to voice your opinions. Even India went through a similar period between 1975 and 1977 when a state of emergency was imposed. People had lost their right to say whatever they wished throughout those 21 months. Meetings and social gatherings were subjected to stringent regulations. The country was deafeningly silent. People felt happy to rejoice as the government removed the state of emergency. That is how you feel when you are empowered. 

However, there is no such thing as absolute freedom of expression. A line must constantly be drawn that cannot be crossed. And it differs from person to person. Every person is free to voice his or her opinions and thereby affect his or her country, if not the entire world, according to the democratic ideal. In light of the current situation, I believe our country is headed on the wrong path in terms of our right to free expression. Many events have occurred in which people’s voices have been silenced. Campaigns are being waged against films, publications are being banned, and people are becoming aggressive towards others who express their opinions. We are stifling our freedom of speech in whatever manner we can, and it appears that this is now a regular occurrence.

It’s all about our viewpoints when it comes to free expression. We have the right to express ourselves as we see fit. Freedom of information, on the other hand, is a vital component of free speech. Disseminating false information is a violation of free speech because misinformation manipulates free speech to further a political objective. People have every right to argue and protest in civilized ways with rationalists, nationalists, and religious zealots.

The Indian constitution promises citizens freedom of expression, yet three recent incidents in India for expressing one’s views in the media against people in authority make one ask if freedom of speech is limited to a privileged few.  In India, an ordinary man’s freedom of speech or expression appears to be purely subjective and rarely a reality. An incident that occurred in Mumbai a few years ago sparked resentment from all sections of the populace. 

Two women were detained in Mumbai, one for posting a comment on Facebook about an entire city being shut down due to Balasaheb Thackeray’s funeral and the other for liking the statement. The local Police jumped into action with an alacrity rarely seen in the execution of the letter of the law, based on a complaint submitted by a local Sena member. To say the least, the recent instance of Gurmehar Kaur and the reaction she got from so-called nationalists is terrible. Perhaps they didn’t see the significance of Ms. Kaur’s statement.  It’s possible they didn’t want to or perhaps Gurmehar is too young to comprehend the implications of her words. 

However, she is still entitled to her viewpoint, and the Indian constitution guarantees her the right to voice it. 

What is evident is that we must advocate for prudence and compassion, or we will undermine the very institution that protects our rights. We must recognize that everyone’s intellectual levels are not the same and that they vary from person to person. Intolerance in any form, however, must no longer be accepted. There is no such thing as a perfect civilization, church, group, or country in the world. It was he who created religion, composed holy texts, established the caste system, established nations, and constructed bombs. We adapt over time since the only constant in the world is change. India, Pakistan, and the United States are not flawless, but I am hopeful that humanity will find its path. 

Freedom of expression is not only necessary; it is essential to our progress; the more it is practiced in a society, the less oppressed its citizens are.

Latest Posts

Archives