The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a petition by 94-year-old widow Vera Sarin who wants the Emergency imposed by the former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to be declared as unconstitutional. The woman had also sought an amount of Rs 25 crore as compensation from authorities involved in imposing and enforcing the Emergency.
Emergency declared in 1975
In India, “The Emergency” refers to a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had a State Emergency declared across the country. Officially issued by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed under Article 352 of the Constitution because of the prevailing “internal disturbance”, the Emergency was in effect from 25 June 1975 until its withdrawal on 21 March 1977. The order bestowed upon the Prime Minister the authority to rule by decree, allowing elections to be suspended and civil liberties to be curbed. For much of the Emergency, most of Indira Gandhi’s political opponents were imprisoned and the press was censored. Several other human rights violations were reported from the time, including a mass forced sterilizationcampaign spearheaded by Sanjay Gandhi, the Prime Minister’s son.
The Emergency is one of the most controversial periods of Independent’s India History.The final decision to impose an emergency was proposed by Indira Gandhi, agreed upon by the President of India, and thereafter ratified by the cabinet and the parliament (from July to August 1975), based on the rationale that there were imminent internal and external threats to the Indian state.
Petition to be declared Emergency as Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether or not it can go into the Constitutional validity of the 1975 national emergency proclaimed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the Central government stating that it will hear the petitioner on the limited aspect of whether the validity of such proclamation can be probed by the Court after passage of “such a long time.”
The Court stated that, “We would not be disinclined to see whether probing such a proclamation after such a long time would be feasible or not. We issue notice on prayer. Learned senior counsel may restructure the petition. Leave to amend the petition by December 18”.
The order was passed after hearing Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner argued that the Court is empowered to examine the validity of the proclamation of emergency.
He stated that, “War crimes issues are still heard. Post-world war people are raising issues of holocaust now. The National Emergency was a fraud on the constitution. We must have this decided by this court. I feel very strongly for this. This is not a matter for political debate. Didn’t we see what happened to prisoners during emergency”.
The Court was initially not inclined to entertain the matter but subsequently agreed to examine the aspect of whether the validity of the proclamation can be gone into after passage of more than 45 years.
The plea filed by 94-year-old Vera Sarin seeks a declaration that the presidential notification proclaiming 1975 national emergency was unconstitutional. Sarin has also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs 25 crores.Sarin has claimed that she along with her husband were compelled to leave the country for fear of being thrown into jail, “in pursuance of unjustifiable and arbitrary detention orders issued against her husband.”In the petition filed through advocate Anannya Ghosh, she has submitted that her late husband was “framed under” Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974and Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
Government authorities seized valuable worth crores from the petitioner’s husband
Before the emergency, her deceased husband had a flourishing business of gold arts, gems, artefacts etc. at Karol Bagh as well as at KG Marg, New Delhi. She stated that,”Their immovable property came to be seized, the movable property consisting of artefacts, gems, carpets, paintings, tusks, statues, ivory worth crores of rupees were also seized and there has been no restitution of the same till date”.
After the husband of the petitioner died in 2000, the petitioner had to single-handedly face all legal proceedings faced against her husband during the emergency period, it was submitted. She stated that, “On many occasions, there used to be knocks on her door (and) policemen and other officials used to enter her home and used to leave her alone only after she offered them leftover pieces of valuables in her home,” it has been alleged.
It has also been also pointed out that after a July 2020 government order, Delhi High Court directed payment of arrears of rent for the property at KG Marg, New Delhi to the Sarin and other legal heirs at a specified monthly rate since 1999.Further, the High Court had held in December 2014 that the proceedings under SAFEMA were initiated bereft of any jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.”The Petitioner at her advanced age has a simple desire to seek a closure to her trauma and an acknowledgment to her suffering and hence, is filing the present petition,” the plea contends.
This Article is Authored by Aryan Sinha, 3rd Year law (BBA+LLB(H) student at Galgotias University.
