.png)
Introduction
The Emergency period in India, from 1975-1977, was a time of political upheaval and authoritarian rule. During this period, civil liberties were suspended, political opposition was suppressed, and the judiciary was under threat. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a former judge in the Supreme Court of India, was a vocal critic of the government's actions during this period. He famously referred to the Emergency as "the darkest hour in Indian democracy and the judiciary's history." In this article, we will explore Justice Krishna Iyer's critique of the judiciary during the Emergency and its relevance today.
Background
The Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The government cited internal disturbances and threats to national security as the reasons for the declaration. The Emergency gave the government sweeping powers, including the power to detain individuals without trial and to censor the press. Political opposition was suppressed, and civil liberties were suspended. The judiciary was also under threat, with the government seeking to exert greater control over the appointment of judges.
Critique of the Judiciary
Justice Krishna Iyer was a strong advocate for the independence of the judiciary. He believed that the judiciary was essential to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that civil liberties were protected. During the Emergency, he was a vocal critic of the government's actions, particularly with regard to the judiciary.
One of the major issues during the Emergency was the detention of individuals without trial. The government had the power to detain individuals for up to two years without trial, and the courts were unable to intervene. Justice Krishna Iyer spoke out against this measure, arguing that it was a violation of the basic principles of natural justice. He wrote in a 1976 article that "the judiciary is no longer a bulwark of civil liberties but a shadow of its former self." This was a powerful statement from a former judge, who had seen firsthand the erosion of the judiciary's independence.
Another major issue during the Emergency was the censorship of the press. The government had the power to censor newspapers, magazines, and other publications. This was a direct attack on the freedom of the press, which is essential to a democratic system. Justice Krishna Iyer was a strong advocate for free speech and a free press. He argued that these were essential components of a democratic system and that without them, there could be no real accountability. In a 1976 speech, he said that "freedom of speech and expression is the breath of life for democracy. Without it, we are reduced to a police state."
Suppression of Dissent
The suppression of dissent was another major issue during the Emergency. The government used the Emergency to suppress political opposition and silence dissenting voices. This was done through a variety of means, including arrests, detention, and censorship. Justice Krishna Iyer was a strong advocate for free speech and the right to dissent. He believed that these were essential components of a democratic system and that without them, there could be no real accountability.
Relevance Today
The critique of the judiciary during the Emergency has relevance today, as India faces new challenges to its democratic system. The independence of the judiciary is once again under threat, as the government seeks to exert greater control over the appointment of judges. There are also concerns about the suppression of dissent, as the government uses laws such as the sedition law to silence opposition voices.
Justice Krishna Iyer's critique of the judiciary during the Emergency serves as a reminder of the importance of an independent judiciary and a free press in a democratic system. These are essential components of a healthy democracy, and any attempt to undermine them must be resisted.
Moreover, Justice Krishna Iyer's critique of the Emergency also highlights the need for checks and balances on executive power. The Emergency was declared due to the perceived internal disturbances and threats to national security, but it ended up being a tool for the government to suppress political opposition and dissent. This demonstrates the danger of unchecked executive power and the need for a robust system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
In recent years, there have been concerns about the erosion of democratic institutions in India, including the independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the press, and the suppression of dissent. These concerns have been raised by civil society organizations, journalists, and academics. The government has also faced criticism for its handling of various issues, including the Citizenship Amendment Act and the farmers' protests.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer's critique of the judiciary during the Emergency highlights the importance of an independent judiciary, a free press, and the right to dissent in a democratic system. It also serves as a reminder of the dangers of unchecked executive power and the need for a robust system of checks and balances. The relevance of his critique continues to this day, as India faces new challenges to its democratic system. It is up to all of us, as citizens of a democracy, to uphold these values and to resist any attempts to undermine them.