Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.
Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skillsβperfect for learners of all ages.
Enroll to start learning
Youβve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take mock test.
Listen to a student-teacher conversation explaining the topic in a relatable way.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
Let's begin by discussing the background of the Emergency. This was a turbulent time for India, especially after the 1971 elections. Can anyone tell me what slogan the Congress used during these elections?
The slogan was 'Garibi Hatao' which means 'Remove Poverty'.
Exactly! This slogan was pivotal as the Congress aimed to tackle poverty, but things did not improve much. The economy faced turmoil due to the Bangladesh crisis and increased inflation, which led to frustration. Can anyone explain why rising prices were a significant issue?
Rising prices meant that people couldn't afford basic necessities, which fueled protests and unrest.
Right! This unrest contributed to movements in Gujarat and Bihar. Those movements were significant in challenging the government. We can summarize this situation as a mix of political discontent due to economic issues. Remember the acronym 'P.E.A.' for Political unrest, Economic strain, and Advocacy movements.
What did these movements hope to achieve?
Great question! They aimed for political reforms and an accountable government. So, in this backdrop of discontent, let's move on to discuss the role of the judiciary.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
Now that we've established the discontent, letβs discuss the judiciary. Can someone tell me one major case that represents the conflict between the government and the judiciary?
The Kesavananda Bharati case?
Yes! In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the Parliament could not alter the basic framework of the Constitution. Why do you think this ruling upset the government?
Because it limited the governmentβs ability to amend laws that they wanted to enforce?
Exactly! This ruling is often remembered as the cornerstone of the judiciary's independence. And remember, 'J.C.P.' - Judiciary, Constitutional framework, and Power conflict. Moving on, how did this conflict escalate into the events leading to the Emergency?
The High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election invalid, which sparked a major political crisis.
Correct! This was the tipping point and led directly to the proclamation of the Emergency.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Lesson
Let's discuss what happened when Emergency was declared. What powers did the government gain?
They could suspend civil liberties and arrest people without trial.
Correct! This included the suspension of fundamental rights. Remember 'S.C.A.R.E.' - Suspension of Civil rights, Arrests, and Restrictions on media and protests. How do you think this impacted public perception of the government?
It probably made people more distrustful and worried about their freedoms.
Absolutely! With the loss of rights, many people went underground to resist the authorities. Recall the publication of blank spaces in newspapers - what did that symbolize?
It symbolized protest against censorship!
Exactly! Overall, the Emergency's legacy is marked by a cautionary tale about the fragility of democracy, but also the resilience of civil rights movements. Remember this duality as we move forward in our discussions.
Read a summary of the section's main ideas. Choose from Basic, Medium, or Detailed.
This section outlines the political backdrop to the Emergency, including the growing dissent against the Congress government, the role of the judiciary in this dissent, and the subsequent impact on democracy and civil rights during the Emergency period.
The section delves into the crucial period leading up to the Emergency imposed in India in 1975, focusing on the escalating tensions between the Indian government and the judiciary. It notes that Indira Gandhi's government faced increasing dissent due to economic hardships and political unrest, manifested in protests such as the Gujarat and Bihar movements. The judiciary played a pivotal role during this time, particularly with the Supreme Court ruling on several legislative changes introduced by the Parliament that attempted to curtail fundamental rights.
This discord culminated in notable events such as the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court established that certain 'basic features' of the Constitution are inviolable. Additionally, the government's controversial appointment of chief justices led to accusations of political interference. The section outlines how the eventual High Court ruling invalidating Indira Gandhi's election acted as a catalyst for the declaration of a national emergency, which allowed significant state control over civil liberties and led to widespread arrests of political dissenters. The Emergency period was characterized by extreme suppression of fundamental rights and press censorship, further deepening the conflict between the judiciary and the executive, leading to significant repercussions for Indian democracy.
Dive deep into the subject with an immersive audiobook experience.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
This was also the period when the government and the ruling party had many differences with the judiciary. Do you remember the discussion about the long drawn conflict between the Parliament and the judiciary? You have studied this last year. Three constitutional issues had emerged. Can the Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights? The Supreme Court said it cannot.
During this time, significant tensions arose between the Indian government and the judiciary. The core of these tensions involved three main constitutional questions, the first being whether the Parliament could alter or reduce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens. The Supreme Court of India held the position that the Parliament does not have the authority to abridge these rights, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary has the power to protect individual rights against legislative encroachments.
Think of the Fundamental Rights like the rules of a game, which protect players (citizens). If the referee (Supreme Court) says the rules cannot be changed, it ensures that the game is fair for all players, and no team (government) can unfairly make up new rules to win.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Secondly, can the Parliament curtail the right to property by making an amendment? Again, the Court said that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in such a manner that rights are curtailed.
The second constitutional issue was about whether Parliament could take away or diminish the right to property through amendments. The Supreme Court ruled against this, asserting that certain rights, especially those enshrined in the Constitution, cannot be eliminated or infringed upon by legislative actions, which reinforced the constitutional protection of these rights.
Imagine you own a bike (property). If an organization (government) tries to take your bike away without a good reason, the law (Supreme Court) protects your ownership. Just as you need a valid reason to take someoneβs bike, the government needs a valid reason to restrict your rights.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
This led to a crisis as far as the relations between the government and the judiciary were concerned. You may remember that this crisis culminated in the famous Kesavananda Bharati Case. In this case, the Court gave a decision that there are some basic features of the Constitution and the Parliament cannot amend these features.
The conflicts between the government and judiciary reached a peak during the Kesavananda Bharati Case, where the Supreme Court articulated the 'Basic Structure Doctrine'. This doctrine asserts that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental structure or essential features. This ruling effectively protected the Constitution from being undermined by temporary political majorities.
Think of the Constitution as the framework of a house. While you can renovate interior spaces (amend the law), you cannot change the foundational structure (basic rights) of the house without risking its stability. The judiciary ensures the house remains safe, regardless of who owns it.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Immediately after the Supreme Courtβs decision in 1973 in the Keshavananda Bharati case, a vacancy arose for the post of the Chief Justice of India. It had been a practice to appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice. But in 1973, the government set aside the seniority of three judges and appointed Justice A. N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India.
Following the critical ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the government faced a crucial moment when a vacancy for the Chief Justice arose. Traditionally, the senior-most judge would be promoted to this role. However, the government chose to bypass this tradition and appointed Justice A. N. Ray, a move that was widely perceived as politically motivated, aiming to influence judicial decisions favorable to the government.
Imagine a school where the top-performing student (senior-most judge) is usually elected as class president. If the school administration selects a student who is not at the top just because they align with the teachers' preferences (government), it frustrates the students and undermines the trust in school leadership.
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
People close to the Prime Minister started talking of the need for a judiciary and the bureaucracy βcommittedβ to the vision of the executive and the legislature.
As tensions between the government and judiciary escalated, there arose discussions about forging a judiciary that aligned closely with the government's objectives. This was characterized by an inclination to foster a judiciary that would support government actions instead of maintaining independence, which was perceived as necessary for effective governance from the government's perspective.
Think of this like a sports coach (government) wanting the referees (judiciary) to favor the team's tactics instead of being impartial. While it might seem beneficial for the coach, it undermines fairness (justice) and could lead to long-term problems for the sport.
Learn essential terms and foundational ideas that form the basis of the topic.
Key Concepts
Political dissent during the Emergency: Protests were led by various sections of society against government policies.
Judicial authority vs. executive power: The judiciary challenged the government's attempts to curtail civil liberties.
Emergency provisions: Legal framework allowing suspension of rights in crises but prone to misuse.
See how the concepts apply in real-world scenarios to understand their practical implications.
The Emergency can be seen as a response to overwhelming political dissent and unrest, combined with judicial decisions that countered the government's authority.
Protests during this period included various movements like the Gujarat Students' agitation, showcased the broader discontent with governance.
Use mnemonics, acronyms, or visual cues to help remember key information more easily.
When rights are lost during strife, Democracy fights for life.
Once upon a time in India, there was a queen named Indira who, facing turmoil, called for an Emergency to restore order, but in doing so, she silenced many voices until the people cried out for their freedom.
Remember 'P.E.A.' - Political unrest, Economic strain, and Advocacy movements as the trio leading to the Emergency.
Review key concepts with flashcards.
Review the Definitions for terms.
Term: Emergency
Definition:
A period in Indian history (1975-1977) when the government declared a state of emergency, allowing for extraordinary measures that suspended civil liberties.
Term: Kesavananda Bharati case
Definition:
A landmark Supreme Court decision establishing the basic structure doctrine, asserting that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
Term: Civil Liberties
Definition:
Individual rights protected by law from governmental infringement, including the right to free speech, assembly, and due process.
Term: Press Censorship
Definition:
The suppression of any communication or information that may be deemed objectionable or harmful by authorities.
Term: Political Dissent
Definition:
The act of challenging or opposing the views or policies of the government.