Justice G D Sharma
“A State without justice is no more than a gang of robbers,” said St. Augustine who was a Theologian philosopher of Berber Region and was born on 13th Nov 354 A.D and died on 8th August 430 A.D. Fifty years ago, India came perilously close to that condition. As we mark the 50th anniversary of the imposition of Emergency on the midnight of June 25, 1975, it is not merely a date in history that we commemorate but it is our solemn duty as citizens of a democratic republic to remember, reflect, and remain vigilant so that the country may not again get plunged in the darkest days of history.
I pen this reflection not merely as a retired judge of the High Court but at the material time imposition of emergency was posted as Deputy Registrar High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu wing having a judicial experience of 10 years. Presently, I have a legal career spanning over six decades with 45+ years in the judiciary of Jammu and Kashmir, culminating as a judge of the J&K High Court. I remained instrumental in tackling cases relating to national security, radical extremism and terrorism. Dedicated to preserving and spreading Indian culture, combating Islamic insurgency and advocating for the under-privileged when was appointed Chairperson of J&K Socially Educationally and Economically Backward Classes Commission. The term of the office expired in December 2024. I am a witness to that time when the Constitution was strangled under the weight of political arrogance and fully backed by executive arm of the government. Even the hallowed halls of justice at some places had also faltered.
THE MIDNIGHT THAT CHANGED INDIA
On the midnight of June 25, 1975, a silence fell over the Indian Republic-one that would not lift for 21 long months. With one stroke of pen, the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi declared a National Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing “internal disturbance” as the reason. What followed was not just the suspension of civil liberties or the mass arrests of opposition leaders coupled with their prominent followers but history has recorded with solemn clarity that it was an attempt to extinguish the very spirit of the Constitution of India.
A CRISIS BORN OF POLITICAL INSECURITY
The Emergency was not a spontaneous response to national crisis; it was a calculated political maneuver. On June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of Allahabad High Court had delivered a historic judgment in the case of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, setting aside the Prime Minister’s 1971 election on grounds of electoral malpractices. It was an unambiguous blow to Smt. Indira Gandhi’s legitimacy. Within days, rather than to step down or seek public reaffirmation, she chose to impose Emergency. Thousands of political opponents, activists, and journalists were imprisoned. Newspapers were subjected to pre-censorship. Slums were bulldozed in the name of urban discipline, and the coercive sterilization drive under Sanjay Gandhi’s watch left a deep scar on the nation’s collective memory.
The Emergency witnessed the incarceration of nearly all prominent opposition leaders at the Centre, including Sarvashri Jayaprakash Narayan, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, George Fernandes, Rajmata Scindia, Maharani Gayatri Devi, Madhu Dandavate, George Fernandes, among many others. Prominent leaders of RSS organization were also arrested throughout the length and breadth of the country. Their imprisonment became symbolic of the widespread political repression that gripped the nation.
JUDICIARY AT THE CROSSROADS
But if the political Executive’s actions during this period were brazen, the response of the judiciary was, tragically, spineless. In the now-infamous judgment of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court held by a 4:1 majority that citizens had no locus standi to approach courts even for violations of their rights to life and liberty during the Emergency. That ruling struck at the heart of the Constitution. The court, which should have stood as the last refuge of the common citizen, instead declared that even if the State takes away a person without reason, hold him without charge, or denies him access to legal counsel, the citizen has no remedy.
THE LONE VOICE OF COURAGE
Only one judge-Justice H.R. Khanna-dissented. In an act of moral and judicial courage that remains unparalleled, he warned the nation that the rule of law does not perish in one swift moment, but dies by slow degrees when the guardians of liberty retreat in fear. His lone dissent cost him the Chief Justiceship of India, as he was superseded in favour of a more compliant junior. But that dissent lives on, illuminating the conscience of Indian jurisprudence to this day. It reminds every awakened citizen of India about a famous adage that when a judge quails justice quails. More precisely said a victim wails.
PACKING THE BENCH AND SILENCING DISSENT
In the background of this judicial surrender, several developments occurred that further undermined the independence of the courts. The government had already shown its intent to manipulate the judiciary in 1973, when it superseded three senior judges of the Supreme Court-Justices Shelat, Hegde, and Grover-to appoint Justice A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India, following their dissent in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case. During the Emergency, this practice continued. Judges who stood firm or ruled against the government were transferred, denied elevation, or sidelined. High Court judges who delivered judgments in favour of detenu petitioners found themselves unceremoniously transferred to remote courts. Some judges, unwilling to be part of this betrayal, chose to resign in protest.
THE BAR’S SILENT RESISTANCE
The judiciary’s failure during the Emergency did not go unnoticed by the legal fraternity. Eminent lawyers such as Nani Palkhivala, Fali S. Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, and others raised their voices, often at great personal risk. Bar Associations across the country passed resolutions condemning the subversion of judicial independence. A few High Courts, including Bombay and Delhi, attempted to hold the line, but their verdicts were stayed or overturned by the Supreme Court with alarming speed.
AFTERMATH AND CONSTITUTIONAL RECOVERY
In retrospect, the Emergency revealed a harsh truth which is that constitutional guarantees are only as strong as the people and institutions who defend them. The Constitution may promise liberty, equality, and justice, but when those charged with upholding these ideals choose timidity over truth, the entire edifice of democracy trembles.
Yet, the story does not end in despair. In 1977, when elections were finally held, the people of India delivered a resounding verdict. Smt Indira Gandhi and her party were voted out of power. Democracy, battered but alive, struck back. The Janata government that followed made important course corrections. The 44th Constitutional Amendment to the Indian Constitution enacted in 1978 which ensured that Article 21-the right to life and personal liberty-would remain inviolable even during an Emergency. It also mandated that the proclamation of Emergency could not be made on vague grounds like “internal disturbance” but only on account of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
A CONSTITUTIONAL WRONG FINALLY OVERTURNED
Decades later, in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment (2017) (given unanimously by nine judges), the Supreme Court finally and formally overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision, acknowledging that fundamental rights are not gifts from the state but natural entitlements of every individual. The court observed, in a moment of profound institutional introspection, that the judgment during the Emergency had been a “constitutional wrong.”
WHY WE MUST REMEMBER JUNE 25
It is vital that we remember June 25, not merely as a date in the calendar, but as a warning etched in our collective memory. History has a strange way of repeating itself-not always in identical form, but in spirit. The methods may differ, the actors may change, but the impulse to concentrate power, suppress dissent, and subvert institutions persists. Today, when debates around civil liberties, press freedom, and judicial independence resurface with renewed urgency, the lessons of the Emergency become all the more relevant.
The role of the judiciary must always be that of a vigilant guardian, not a silent spectator. Our Constitution does not envision a judiciary that bows to the Executive. It envisages one that stands firm, impartial, and fearless. As one who has spent more six decades from 1961 till date within the system, I say this with humility and conviction: independence of the judiciary is not a luxury-it is the lifeblood of our democracy.
EFFECT OF EMERGENCY IN THE STATE OF J&K
Sheikh Abdullah became the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir on 25-02-1975 after entering into political accord known as “Indira Sheikh Accord of 1974”. On August 15,1975 Sheikh Abdullah openly caused desertion of ten members from the Congress Legislative Party and joined them in the National Conference. Temporarily, the differences were resolved by appointing a coordinating committee from both the parties. On October 21, 1975, he (Sheikh Abdullah) announced the expansion of his Cabinet in which he included four Congressmen without consulting Smt. Indira Gandhi. Smt. Indira Gandhi retaliated by not allowing those four members to join the cabinet and this resulted into cancellation of the swearing in ceremony. He (Sheikh Abdullah) remained in power during National Emergency. After emergency was lifted, the Janta Party came to power in the Centre in 1977 general elections. Elections were called for J&K Legislative Assembly in June 1977 which are generally regarded as the first “free and fair elections”.
While much of the nation reeled under the centralized grip of the Emergency, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the period provided a strategic opportunity for political consolidation. Sheikh Abdullah, who had returned to power as Chief Minister in 1975 under the “Indira-Sheikh Accord”, used the cover of Emergency to push through a significant amendment to the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. Because Sheikh Abdullah was in power so leaders of National Conference could not be touched. Conversely, prominent leaders of then only opposition party namely, Jan Sangh and RSS were taken into custody and in some cases their family members were also harassed. As an instance, Shri Ram Nath Bhalgotra, Advocate of Jammu had family which consisted of only female members. They were harassed bitterly in order to co-erce the absconding advocate to yield and offer his arrest voluntarily. But all efforts ended in damp squib. Rather, after the restoration of normalcy, he even became MLA from Jammu City East Constituency. In 1977 with little public debate and no electoral mandate, the term of the J&K Legislative Assembly was extended from five to six years-an anomaly that remained for decades, unique to the state. This move was undertaken during a time when democratic safeguards were suspended across the country, exemplified how the Emergency was used not only to silence dissent but also to entrench political dominance at the regional level. In the case of J&K, the democratic process itself was manipulated under the guise of constitutional procedure, with far-reaching consequences for political representation and federal integrity.
This practice of tenure of six years remained in the erstwhile state of J&K until 2019 when Article 370 was abrogated and the practice of five-year tenure was restored.
A BLACK DAY, ETCHED IN THE NATION’S CONSCIENCE
Fifty years later, we must mark June 25 not with ceremony, but with solemnity. It should be remembered as a Black Day-a day when the Constitution was suspended, the courts capitulated, and the republic stood still. Let us remind the next generation that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that the only safeguard against tyranny is the courage of conscience.
(The author is Former Judge, J&K High Court, Jammu)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
