Secularism and 1975 emergency

When nothing could stop Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha from delivering his epic judgment on the petition which Raj Narain had filed against the Prime Minister’s election to the Lok Shabha in 1971, Neivulne Krishna Iyer Seshan, Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s senior-most private secretary, was flitting from here to there, waiting for the epic judgment, on 12th June of the same year. Justice Sinha found Indira Gandhi Nehru guilty of misusing the government machinery which led to the defeat of Raj Narain in Rae Bareli constituency. By this judgment Mrs. Gandhi was debarred from holding any elective post for the next six years. When Mrs. Gandhi Nehru filed an appeal to the apex court, the Supreme Court of India granted partial stay on the High Court’s order but it was also ordered that Mrs. Gandhi would not be able to take part in the Lok Shabha proceedings. During this time there was nationwide protest against Indira Gandhi Nehru where Jay PrakashNarain was the helmsman.

On 26th June, the then President of India Fakhuruddin Ali Ahmed officially issued national emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution of India. The final decision to impose an emergency was proposed by Indira Gandhi. She even didn’t think it necessary to discuss the matter with the Cabinet. At that time the PMO wasn’t bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The President is only a nominal head of the State. And before the 44th Amendment Act, the President’s power was restricted to many extents. At that time many were arrested under the MISA Act, the press was censored, the Courts were silent. At that time ADM Jabalpur’s case was decided by the Supreme Courtand it was held that Article 21 which guarantees right to life and liberty could be suspended during the emergency. Later on the apex court regretted for its decision.

During such a situation, through the 42nd Amendment Act, the concept of secularism was made explicit in the Constitution. When the Constitution of India was enacted the term ‘secularism’ was not explicit, however Articles 25-28 guarantee freedom of religion. Being dynamic in nature, the word ‘Secularism’ is not defined anywhere in the Constitution of India. A State can either be a secular or a theocratic or an atheistic state. A secular state doesn’t extent patronage to any particular religion. A secular state is always neutral and impartial towards the religion. In S R Bommai v. UOI, the nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared secularism as the basic structure of the Constitution of India and it cannot be destroyed by the Parliament.

India is a pluralistic country with diversity in culture. Religion has been a very volatile subject in India and the Constitution seeks to ensure the state’s neutrality in the area of the religion. Value-based education will help the nation to fight against fanaticism, ill-will, violence and corruption. These values can be inculcated if the basic tenets of the religions are learnt. This was the view of the apex court in Aruna Roi v. UOI. It’s really a high time to out with the adversary feeling and in with the feeling of brotherhood. Doesn’t the preamble of our Constitution talk about UNITY OF THE NATION? We should have to remember that our Constitution is written in blood rather than ink. We should respect it.

Shyam Krishna Kalita,

LL.M. Student, Guwahati