Analysing Indira\'s Emergency and Modi\'s Lockdown
ANALYSING INDIRA’S EMERGENCY AND MODI’S LOCKDOWN
- Krishna Vamsi, National Law University, Odisha
I. EMERGENCY (1975)
On the night of June 25th 1975 the then president Fakhruddin-Ali-Ahmed declared a nation-wide emergency under article 352(1) of the Constitution on the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (PM Gandhi). It was arguably the darkest moment in Indian history post-independence. Democracy and civil liberties were suspended atthe time; political dissent was clamped down and the press was censored. This period lasted for 21 months starting 25th June, 1975 to 21st March, 1977.
REASONS FOR PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY
Although many have contended the main reason behind such a draconian and hasty imposition of emergency or its presence thereof, there is a general consensus that the following factors had a contributing role to play:
JP Movement
Students of Bihar started protesting against the corrupt practices of the state government. To spearhead this movement, they approached Jaya Prakash Narayan, fondly known as JP. He readily agreed to lead the movement and it soon came to be known as the JP Movement. In June 1974, JP called for a total revolution of the state and asked the students to take part in social activities in order to reform the nation. The crowd was moved in huge numbers and common man from all walks of life left their jobs and studies to join the movement and overthrow the corrupt government. Neither the centre budged to the movement nor did the state government. In 1975, JP travelled to different parts ofthecountry to gather masses to fight the government of the day. He united all opposition under a common cause – Anti- Congress. This posed a huge threat to the future of the party and to the political career of Indira Gandhi.
Railways-Strike
In May 1974, the world witnessed the mightiest display of bravado against the Indian state- Railways Strike. There were two reasons for this strike – (i) the pay scale for railway employees had been stagnant for years together despite a rise in salaries of other government entities. (ii) The staff demanded an eight-hour work-day as their work had been deemed continuous/perpetual since the colonial age. This meant that several employees had to stay back at work for days together. The strike was brutally suppressed by the Gandhi government and countless workers were jailed and their families were driven out of their quarters. Though the government was successful in putting an end to the agitation- even if it meant adopting drastic and unreasonable measures to get there – it lost the confidence of the people and revulsion for the government grew stronger than ever.
Raj Narain’s verdict
In the parliamentary elections of 1971, Raj Narain lost to Indira Gandhi in the Raebareli constituency. He filed a petition at the Allahabad High Court accusing Ms. Gandhi of corrupt election practices alleging that she’d spent more money than what was allowed and took the help of government officials for her campaign. In June 1975, Justice Sinha set aside Ms. Gandhi’s election and disqualified her from holding any government office for 6 years. On appeal, the Supreme Court gave a conditional stay on the order; meaning she could attend parliament but couldn’t vote unless her appeal was decided. This resulted in a stimulus for the JP movement. Their demand for her resignation had to come to fruition. Her party officials too saw her resignation fit for the party but, Ms. Gandhi held on to the post firmly. Many argue that the threat this judgment had posed to Ms. Gandhi’s prime ministerial post was the sole reason for the immediate imposition of internal emergency.
CONSEQUENCES THAT FOLLOWED:
• Social Crackdown
Ms. Gandhi’s son Sanjay Gandhi enforced a nation-wide compulsory sterilization programme. The government supposedly initiated this campaign to tackle the population tantrum. An approximate 6.2 million men were sterilized within a year. It’s interesting that Sanjay Gandhi didn’t even hold an elected post at the time.
On 25th June 1975, electricity to all media houses was taken away. Big media names such as –TheHindu, Times of India couldn’t publish any material without getting approval from the government. By doing this, the state tried to curb all forms of dissent and criticism against its policies.
In another attempt to clamp dissent, party leaders, workers, volunteers were arrested under preventive detention the next morning.
• Constitutional Amends
38th Constitutional amendment –
Emergency provisions were placed under 9th schedule and were barred from judicial review. This amendment made emergency conclusive and binding.
39th amendment –
Government made an amendment by which election of the President, Vice-President, Speaker and Prime Minister couldn’t be set aside by the SC. This amendment invalidated the Allahabad HC judgment.
42nd amendment –
This amendment introduced Fundamental Duties and tried to take away power of Supreme Court and High Courts to decide upon the constitutional validity of laws made by Parliament. Sanctity of Fundamental Rights was contained and absolute powers were granted to the Prime Minister’s office. It bestowed Parliament with unregulated powers to amend the Constitution.
II. LOCKDOWN (2020)
On the night of March 24th 2020, the government ordered a preemptive nationwide lockdown to forestall any and all damage to the citizens from COVID-19. This 21-day lockdown period is aimed at buying some time to arrive at an effective strategy to contain the virus. During the lockdown, essential services such as groceries, banks, pharmacies, etc will continue to operate. While briefing the citizens about rules of the lockdown, PM Modi is seen as saying that this period will be a tell as to how prepared we as a nation are to fight this virus.
LAWS IN FORCE DURING LOCKDOWN
• Disaster Management Act, 2005
This Act was enforced for containment of disasters and matters connected therewith. This gives government access to National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) enabling it to enhance medical facilities and foster research towards developing a much-needed vaccine to tackle this epidemic. The Supreme Court on March 31st stated that section 54 of the Act shall apply to those who spread unverified information on WhatsApp and other social media platforms and shall be imprisoned for a period extending up to a year and/or fine.
• Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
This statute authorizes centre and state to take special measures to contain the spread of an epidemic such as the COVID-19. Persons found in violation of provisions under this act shall be imprisoned for 1-6 months and/or fine as mentioned in section 188 of IPC.
• Section 144, CrPC
This law authorizes a district magistrate of a state/UT to order prohibition of gatherings involving 4/more people in a specific area. It is imposed in an area or a time of perceived danger to human life/property. No order under this section can be enforced for more than 2 months; subject to government’s discretion, it can be extended to a maximum of 6 months.
IMPACTS
While the lockdown is said to have wide-reaching impacts, social and economic impacts stand out from the rest owing to the nature of the consequences they set-off.
• Huge numbers of casual labor force depending on daily wages for their livelihood were thrown out of work.
• There was a narrow time-period between announcing the lockdown and freezing of all means of commute. This meant several migrant labors either travelled in tightly packed buses and trains exposing them to the risk of contracting the virus, or they couldn’t reach their homes by any means except walking thousands of miles.
• 90% of the nation’s workforce falling under informal economy will take a huge hit if this 3-week period isn’t utilized judiciously. Added to that, India was facing rising levels of unemployment.
• To meet the food security of the population, government has announced free rice and wheat to vulnerable sections of society which constitutes 2/3rd population. Although, the success of this hinges on delivery as transporting the grains is a huge problem when most of the states have ordered a lockdown/curfew.
III. DRAWING PARALLELS
While the two impositions seem to have certain similarities such as restricting civil liberties, they largely stand on the opposite end of the spectrum. Inboth the scenarios, the entire nation came to a standstill; but in the former, the Prime Minister might’ve acted in the way she did to safeguard the political interests of the party and herself, in the latter, the lockdown was aimed at safeguarding the health of citizens and the future of the country. There can’t be two actions more different than these two. Even if, arguendo, the lockdown had been a very hasty and ill-planned decision, intent behind such a step isn’t as depraved as the emergency itself to say the least!
References:
1. Abhishayant Kidangoor, ‘What\'s Happening Inside India During Coronavirus Lockdown’ Time (New Delhi, March 31 2020) <https://time.com/5812394/india-coronavirus-lockdown-modi/> accessed April 7, 2020.
2. Bhushan P, The Case That Shook India: the Verdict That Led to the Emergency (Penguin Random House India 2018)
3.‘1974: Bihar Movement and Total Revolution’(Guruprasad\'s Portal, June 262014) <http://guruprasad.net/posts/1974-bihar-movement-and-total-revolution/> accessed April 72020.
4. State of U.P v Raj Narain & Ors. 1975 AIR 865.
5. The Epidemic Diseases Act 1897.
