Latest news with #MaintenanceofInternalSecurityAct
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Congress must apologise for imposing emergency in 1975: Venkaiah Naidu
Terming the imposition of Emergency by the Congress government in 1975 as a 'draconian measure', former Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu opined that the grand old party should apologise to the people for curtailing civil liberties during that period. In an exclusive interview to PTI, Venkaiah Naidu, who was a student union leader while pursuing law in Andhra University in Visakhapatnam during the emergency period, said he had to spend nearly one and a half years in prison for raising his voice against the government of the day. "It was a draconian measure. They (Congress) should have apologised for it. They should have regretted it. But the Congress never repented or apologised to the people. But they should have regretted imposing the Emergency. Now, on the occasion of the 50th year of emergency, they should express regret publicly," Naidu said. "I feel that they should really apologise to people for imposing emergency, for containing civil liberties, for imposing press censorship. And also, all civil liberties were taken away. Right to protest was taken away, Venkaiah Naidu added. The former VP said during the Emergency, every newspaper was put under censorship, and Press Council Act was amended too. Recalling his memories, Naidu said, in the capacity of chairman of the Students' Union, he invited Jayaprakash Narayan to address the students, for which he was arrested under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). He further said he got a message from RSS sources that there was a possibility of him getting arrested as an emergency was imposed, prompting him to leave Visakhapatnam and go underground for two and a half months, visiting different places disguised. He was finally arrested when he was going to Guntur from Vijayawada in September 1975 and sent to the Central prison in Visakhapatnam and later to Hyderabad. So a total of around 17 months, and 25 days or so, I was in jail. I was fortunate that I could meet important leaders, freedom fighters, and people belonging to different ideological backgrounds who were all there in the jail. In the jail, they were treated as political detainees, he said. According to him emergency measures were harsh in North India while in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu the implementation was not that strict as Vengala Rao (Congress) and Karunanidhi (DMK), then chief ministers respectively, did not enforce it vigorously. Venkaiah Naidu said he, along with his friend, executed a plan of disrupting a public meeting of Sanjay Gandhi, son of Indra Gandhi, releasing non-venomous snakes on the ground, leading to a chaotic situation in the rally. After the emergency, he unsuccessfully contested Lok Sabha elections on the Janata Party ticket from Ongole in AP, though the party came to power in 1977. Marking the 50th anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency, the Ministry of Culture has planned to undertake a year-long commemoration of it starting June 25, and prepared a schedule of activities which it has shared with various states and UTs for them to host these events. In a letter dated June 14, the ministry stated that the imposition of the emergency on June 25, 1975, stands as a stark reminder of the darkest period in India's democratic history.
The Hindu
15 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Congress should apologise for imposing emergency in 1975, says Venkaiah Naidu
Terming the imposition of Emergency by the Congress government in 1975 as a 'draconian measure', former Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu opined that the grand old party should apologise to the people for curtailing civil liberties during that period. Read our Indepth Coverage on the 1975 Emergency: The Dark Age of Indian democracy In an exclusive interview to PTI, Venkaiah Naidu, who was a student union leader while pursuing law in Andhra University in Visakhapatnam during the emergency period, said he had to spend nearly one and a half years in prison for raising his voice against the government of the day. "It was a draconian measure. They (Congress) should have apologised for it. They should have regretted it. But the Congress never repented or apologised to the people. But they should have regretted imposing the Emergency. Now, on the occasion of the 50th year of emergency, they should express regret publicly," Mr. Naidu said. "I feel that they should really apologise to people for imposing emergency, for containing civil liberties, for imposing press censorship. And also, all civil liberties were taken away. Right to protest was taken away,' Venkaiah Naidu added. The former VP said during the Emergency, every newspaper was put under censorship, and Press Council Act was amended too. Arrested under MISA Recalling his memories, Mr. Naidu said, in the capacity of chairman of the Students' Union, he invited Jayaprakash Narayan to address the students, for which he was arrested under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). He further said he got a message from RSS sources that there was a possibility of him getting arrested as an emergency was imposed, prompting him to leave Visakhapatnam and go underground for two and a half months, visiting different places disguised. He was finally arrested when he was going to Guntur from Vijayawada in September 1975 and sent to the Central prison in Visakhapatnam and later to Hyderabad. 'So, a total of around 17 months and 25 days or so, I was in jail. I was fortunate that I could meet important leaders, freedom fighters, and people belonging to different ideological backgrounds who were all there in the jail. In the jail, we were treated as political detainees,' he said. According to him emergency measures were harsh in North India while in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu the implementation was not that strict as Vengala Rao (Congress) and Karunanidhi (DMK), then chief ministers respectively, did not enforce it vigorously. After the emergency, he unsuccessfully contested Lok Sabha elections on the Janata Party ticket from Ongole in AP, though the party came to power in 1977. Marking the 50th anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency, the Ministry of Culture has planned to undertake a year-long commemoration of it starting June 25, and prepared a 'schedule of activities' which it has shared with various states and UTs for them to host these events. In a letter dated June 14, the ministry stated that the imposition of the emergency on June 25, 1975, stands as a 'stark reminder of the darkest period in India's democratic history.'
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
50 years on, Emergency lingers as memory and metaphor in Mumbai
June 25, 1975. Bombay woke up to an announcement on All India Radio that Emergency had been clamped across India in view of 'internal disturbances.' Heavy rains darkened the city's bleak mood. 'There was a blanket of fear over Bombay in the first few weeks. No authentic information was available thanks to press censorship. I was 23 and scared as the future suddenly seemed grim and uncertain,' said music critic and writer Amarendra Nandu Dhaneshwar, who would go on to spend two years in prison as a class 'A' detainee as political prisoners were then termed. But initially, there were also some people, especially among the city's middle class, who were happy to see government officials with their noses to the desk and suburban trains arriving on time, said Gujarati writer Ramesh Oza. But very soon the reality of the Emergency started to bite and the protest movement began, he added. Oza recalls sneaking into the ward at Jaslok Hospital where Jayaprakash Narayan, helmsman of the anti-Emergency stir, was undergoing treatment for kidney ailment. 'I was 21 and hugely nervous. I told JP-ji that I was keen on doing my bit to restore democracy. From his hospital bed he put me on to a senior Sarvodaya functionary, and got me inducted into the Bombay Sarvoday Mandal, a hub of civil rights activists.' Over the next two years, it was the city's socialists and Gandhians who kept the embers of the anti-Emergency crusade burning. Several of them were arrested under the draconian Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), while many others went underground. 'The Gandhian-Socialist brigade dubbed it doosri aazadi ki ladai [second war of independence],' said Dhaneshwar. But every act of resistance was met by greater repression. Young men were randomly picked up from their homes for vasectomy. 'Aapression' (operation) became a dirty word across Maharashtra's rural heartland. On October 14, 1975, popular Sarvodaya leader Prabhakar Sharma's death by self-immolation at Wardha stunned the city. But it also fired up a whole new generation of protestors, most remarkably a slew of fiery women leaders. They included the writer-scholar Durga Bhagwat, Gandhian academics Usha Mehta and Aloo Dastoor, Socialist firebrand leader Mrinal Gore, Pushpa Bhave, Rohini Gavankar, Sudha Warde, and Jana Sangh leader Jayawantiben Mehta. Under Bhave's leadership, a small group of volunteers would plaster anti-Emergency posters in railway compartments after the last train had chugged out of Churchgate station. The police were constantly on Bhave's trail, but she always managed to give them a slip. As did Mrinal Gore, who dodged the cops for a year by changing homes and hair styles, said her friend and poet Usha Mehta. Gore once tip-toed into Usha Mehta's Shivaji Park residence at mid-night, unrecognisable because of her closely cropped hair and'modern' look. 'Mrinaltai would help us in household chores, even as she kept an eye on the window to check if a CID official was hovering around,' recalled Mehta, who memorialised the Emergency in a book titled 'Aanibaani Aani Aapan' (Emergency And We). Their comrade-in-arms Durga Bhagwat was arrested in June, 1976. The police entered the Royal (now Mumbai) Asiatic Society, her second home, even as she was sitting down to lunch. The cops were embarrassed when Bhagwat offered them food, said noted writer-translator Ashok Shahane. There were others such as Minoo Masani, the editor of 'Freedom First' who contested censorship orders while publisher-writer Ramdas Bhatkal of Popular Prakashan which would go on to publish JP's Emergency memoirs, and Usha Mehta and academic DV Deshpande floated the 'Group of 1977' to provide financial relief and legal aid to Emergency victims. When the state department for publicity objected to the publication of a coruscating translated essay by Sunil Gangopadhyay in the literary magazine 'Satyakatha', the editor Ram Patwardhan chose to keep the page blank rather than lop off of a few paragraphs from Gangopadhyay's piece, said Sunil Karnik, who was then a sub-editor on the magazine. Long incarceration brought some sections of the Socialists and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh closer. RSS members Wamanrao Parab and Swaroopchand Goel, among others, were Dhaneshwar's cell-mates at the Arthur Road prison. Sudhir Joglekar, a senior Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad member, shared the Yerawada prison cell in Pune with Sadanand Varde and Jagannath Jadhav (both Socialists), and Datta Patil and Prabhakar Patil (both Peasants' and Workers' Party). However, the camaraderie forged in jail did not quite dissolve ideological differences, which eventually brought down the Morarji Desai -led Janata government in 1979. Fifty years on, Emergency continues to flicker on Mumbai's grey horizon both as memory and metaphor.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Maharashtra Cabinet doubles emergency honorarium and expands benefit to spouses
Nagpur: The Maharashtra government has doubled the monthly honorarium for individuals jailed during the Emergency period (1975–77). The decision was taken during a cabinet meeting chaired by chief minister in Mumbai on Tuesday. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The state cabinet also approved a series of amendments to the Emergency Honorarium Scheme, extending its benefits to the surviving spouses of eligible detainees. Under the revised scheme, individuals who were imprisoned for more than one month during the Emergency will now receive ₹20,000 per month, while those jailed for less than a month will get ₹10,000. The surviving spouse of such detainees will receive ₹10,000 and ₹5,000, respectively — up from the earlier ₹5,000 and ₹2,500. In a significant relief for families, spouses of detainees who passed away before January 2, 2018, are now eligible to apply for the honorarium by submitting an affidavit. They will have a 90-day window to apply once the government notification is issued. The scheme, originally launched in 2018, aims to recognize the sacrifices of those arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the Defence of India Rules (DIR) for their political and social resistance during the Emergency. It has seen widespread uptake across districts such as Nagpur, Pune, and Buldhana. With this decision, the government seeks to offer long-overdue recognition and financial support to both direct victims and their families. As per a recent Government Resolution dated May 30, 2025, the state sanctioned ₹28.12 crore for disbursement under the scheme for the period April 2025 to January 2026. Nagpur was allocated ₹3.43 crore for 402 beneficiaries, ranking third in the state after Pune and Buldhana. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The total budgetary provision for the scheme in 2025–26 stands at ₹55.50 crore, underscoring the government's commitment to honoring those who endured political imprisonment during one of India's darkest periods. District collectors will be responsible for processing new applications and ensuring timely disbursement. The latest changes mark a significant shift in both scale and sensitivity, acknowledging the lasting impact of political repression on thousands of families across Maharashtra.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
ADM Jabalpur: The top court's fall and redemption
Fifty years after the Emergency, the memory of that period continues to haunt the conscience of India's constitutional democracy. Central to that collective reckoning is the Supreme Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case in 1976, famously dubbed the 'Habeas Corpus case'. Also Read: HC orders judicial inquiry into construction of 17 illegal buildings in Shil Daighar At a time when the judiciary was expected to act as the guardian of civil liberties, the apex court chose to become an instrument of the executive, handing down a verdict that effectively sanctioned state authoritarianism. The judgment is a cautionary tale of how legal formalism and deference to executive authority can gut the soul of a liberal constitutional democracy. Also Read: Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to alleged 'dunki' agent HT takes a look at the legal, political and moral dimensions of the case, the dissent that stood tall against the tide, and the decades-long journey of constitutional redemption that culminated in its formal overruling in 2017. The context On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a national Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbances. Civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents jailed, and press freedom muzzled. The government invoked Article 359(1), issuing a presidential order suspending the right of citizens to move courts for the enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 -- rights guaranteeing equality, life, personal liberty, and protection against arbitrary arrest. Also Read: Chhota Shakeel aide discharged from 2022 extortion case due to lack of evidence Against this backdrop, several high courts granted relief to detainees under Article 226, questioning the legality of their arrests under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. The Union government challenged these orders, leading to the Supreme Court's decision in ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla. The pivotal legal issue was whether a citizen could seek judicial remedy via habeas corpus (essentially challenge detention) when the enforcement of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) stood suspended. In a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that no individual had the locus standi to approach courts for enforcement of fundamental rights during the Emergency. The majority judgment, delivered by then Chief Justice of India AN Ray and concurred with by justices MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati, held that the suspension of Article 21 rendered the right to life and personal liberty non-justiciable. Even if a detention was illegal, arbitrary or mala fide, the courts had no authority to intervene, stated the majority opinion, asserting that rights existed only insofar as the Constitution recognised and enforced them. This effectively meant that during the Emergency, the State could deprive a person of their liberty or even life without any legal recourse. The verdict was an endorsement of unchecked executive power. It subordinated the judiciary to the will of the government, silenced legal dissent, and undermined the foundational promise of the Constitution: That liberty is not at the mercy of the State. The dissent The lone dissent came from justice HR Khanna, who rejected the majority's formalism and asserted that the right to life and liberty is not a gift of the Constitution but an inherent natural right. Drawing from natural law and common law traditions, justice Khanna argued that certain rights are so intrinsic to human dignity that they transcend constitutional text. His judgment famously stated, 'Even in the absence of Article 21, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.' Justice Khanna underscored that the Constitution did not create the right to life and liberty; it merely recognised it. As he eloquently put it: 'Rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness.' This means that the executive branch cannot misuse its power and claim protection simply because the President has issued a proclamation. Therefore, he held, even when fundamental rights are suspended by a presidential order, judges still have the authority to review the actions of the executive to ensure they are lawful and not arbitrary. His principled stand cost him the Chief Justiceship as he was superseded by justice Beg despite being senior. The ADM Jabalpur judgment sparked outrage among jurists, scholars, and civil society. It came to symbolise judicial abdication, a moment when the Supreme Court failed in its primary duty to act as a bulwark against executive excess. Though the Emergency was lifted in 1977 and the Janata Party came to power, the damage had been done. Yet, the spirit of justice Khanna's dissent lived on, influencing a more expansive and liberal interpretation of rights in the years to come. Reversal and redemption The judicial journey from ADM Jabalpur to KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017) is one of moral and constitutional redemption. It began with Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court overturned the narrow reading of Article 21 established in AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950) which held that each fundamental right operates independently and should therefore be interpreted in isolation. The Maneka Gandhi ruling declared that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, creating a triadic relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 – as against the previous concept of fundamental rights existing in separate silos. Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated that natural justice is 'not a creation of the Constitution but inherent in human values.' In many ways, the Maneka Gandhi case was the jurisprudential response to ADM Jabalpur's moral collapse, reasserting the judiciary's role in preserving dignity and fairness. That trajectory culminated in the 2017 KS Puttaswamy verdict. In KS Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench in the top court finally buried ADM Jabalpur. Writing the lead opinion, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud explicitly overruled the majority view in his father's judgment in ADM Jabalpur. He stated: 'The judgments rendered by all the four judges constituting the majority in ADM Jabalpur are seriously flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. They constitute rights under natural law.' It was a rare and poignant moment of judicial introspection. In 2020, during the Covid-19 lockdown, the Supreme Court again revisited ADM Jabalpur. A bench headed by justice Ashok Bhushan, while ruling on police delays in filing chargesheets, emphasised that the right to liberty remains enforceable even in emergencies. The court noted that the 'retrograde steps' taken in ADM Jabalpur were immediately remedied by the 44th Amendment and formally overruled by Puttaswamy. The 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 responded to the ADM Jabalpur verdict by inserting a critical safeguard -- even during an Emergency, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. This was Parliament's way of ensuring that the excesses sanctioned by ADM Jabalpur would not be repeated. It codified what justice Khanna had asserted all along – that certain rights are non-negotiable. The story of ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla is not just about a flawed judgment but stands as a grim reminder of what happens when courts choose executive convenience over constitutional conscience. It is about the fragility of constitutional rights, the dangers of judicial timidity and the enduring value of dissent. It is a crucial narrative that reveals about a moment when the rule of law bent under pressure, and how that breach was slowly repaired through principled jurisprudence and legislative intervention. Justice Khanna's dissent, once sidelined, now occupies a place of honour in India's constitutional canon. It reminds us that in times of crisis, the judiciary must rise above expediency and remain faithful to the moral foundations of the Constitution.
