What Was the Overlooked Supreme Court Case During Indira Gandhi's Emergency That Preserved Democracy?

New Delhi, June 25 (NationPress) Narratives regarding the battle against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Emergency often overlook the pivotal contributions of some fearless attorneys and a few brave judges who faced personal and professional hardships yet remained steadfast in their defense of the Constitution and the rule of law, asserts the daughter of the lawyer involved in the landmark election petition case.

"The stories surrounding the Emergency primarily highlight the roles of political figures and certain media personalities, but they do not adequately emphasize the contributions of attorneys and select judges. The turmoil in the nation alongside the JP (Jay Prakash Narayan) movement are frequently cited as catalysts for the Emergency; however, it was a legal battle that triggered it... specifically when (PM Indira Gandhi) lost her case in the Allahabad High Court," stated economist and editor Rama Goyal, daughter of J.P. Goyal, who represented socialist leader Raj Narain's election petition case in both the high court and the Supreme Court, in an interview with IANS.

Alongside her father and other notable figures such as Nani Palkhivala, C.K. Daphtary, V.M. Tarkunde, and Shanti Bhushan, who contested various provisions related to the Emergency in courts, she highlights judges like Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, whose ruling disqualified Indira Gandhi and prohibited her from running for elections for six years, as well as Supreme Court Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, who granted her only a conditional stay, and H.R. Khanna.

Additionally, various high court judges who upheld fundamental rights faced repercussions through denial of permanent positions or transfers, she notes.

In a telephonic interview with IANS, Goyal, who has compiled "Saving India from Indira: The Untold Story of Emergency - Memoirs of J. P. Goyal" from her father's papers, argues that the Emergency should not be viewed in isolation but as part of Indira Gandhi's regime's efforts to dominate the judiciary.

These initiatives began with the Golaknath case in 1967 regarding Parliament's capacity to amend fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the election petition filed by Raj Narain contesting his defeat to Indira Gandhi in UP's Rae Bareli in the 1971 elections, and notably, the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, where the Supreme Court established the "basic structure" doctrine, imposing limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, she explained.

The supersession of Supreme Court judges who were next in line to become Chief Justice of India by their more compliant counterparts marked a significant step in this direction, amid discussions among senior Congress leaders and ministers about a "committed judiciary," she added.

"Following the Kesavananda Bharati case, the government appointed Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India, superseding Justices J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, and K.S. Hegde. Chief Justice Ray was indebted to Indira Gandhi and sought to discreetly overturn the Kesavananda Bharati verdict," Goyal remarked.

"This was not an isolated incident... Justice Khanna, who was the only dissenting judge in the 'Habeas Corpus' case, was also superseded for the CJI position by Justice M.H. Beg, who was perceived as close to the Nehru-Gandhi family and even served as Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's election agent at one time," she added.

Nonetheless, Goyal informed IANS that while both the Kesavananda Bharati case and the 'Habeas Corpus' case (ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla), where a Supreme Court constitutional bench ruled 4:1 in 1976 against the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 for enforcing the right to personal liberty under Article 21 during an emergency, are landmark decisions, another case deserves more recognition.

This case, I. Jagadeeswara Rao vs Union of India, saw the then CJI Ray in November 1975 attempting to covertly overturn the Kesavananda Bharati ruling by orally listing it before a special bench, without any formal reference to the apex court.

"This would have dismantled the 'basic structure' doctrine, enabling the government to amend the Constitution at will... potentially reducing it to a one-page document. However, seasoned lawyers, including my father and others like Palkhivala, Daphtary, and Tarkunde, caught wind of this and devised their strategy accordingly," she stated.

The group of lawyers submitted intervention applications for habeas corpus on behalf of detainees during the Emergency in Ambala (Haryana), and when the matter was presented before the Supreme Court, arrangements were made for Palkhivala to lead the arguments.

"Palkhivala argued for a day and a half, and ultimately, Chief Justice Ray raised his hands in exasperation and remarked, 'The case is up in the air,' leading to the dissolution of the special bench," Goyal recounted, drawing from her father's recollections in her book.

"It was a significant victory... it was the case that preserved Indian democracy," she concluded in her interview with IANS.

Reflecting on the personal impact of the Emergency on her family, Goyal shared that her father, who had organized a lawyers' convention against the supersession of the CJI, was targeted and faced unfavorable judgments in his cases.

"His legal practice suffered significantly, leading to financial difficulties. We had to relocate, family friends in government roles ceased visiting us, and I faced emotional distress... we even had to go underground at night, sleeping in different places due to fears that my father might be arrested," she recounted.

Regarding the sterilization excesses, she recalled a friend from Haryana mentioning that men, fearing being rounded up, would visit markets disguised as women.