During the nearly seventy-two years since Independence, India has deviated from democratic life only once—during the twenty-one months of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency.
‘Saving India from Indira‘ describes the events leading up to, and during the darkest days of, democratic India, as they actually unfolded. Recounted by J.P. Goyal, a key lawyer for Raj Narain in the famous election case against Mrs Gandhi that led to the imposition of the so-called National Emergency on 25 June 1975 at the behest of then prime minister Indira Gandhi, this no-holds-barred account of a crucial insider describes the twists and turns in this case in the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India. It gives a blow-by-blow account of the battle that Goyal, along with a battery of lawyers, waged in the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution of India against the amendments that could alter its basic structure.
Following is an excerpt from the book, from the chapter – Proclamation of the Emergency and Its Aftermath
Two cots, one for myself and the other for Shri Bhrigunath, were put on the rear lawns of Shri Raj Narain’s residence. I went to bed. At about 3 a.m., I was woken up by Urmilesh Jha, who was the former secretary to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia and was at that time working as a secretary to Shri Raj Narain. He told me that the entire house was surrounded by the police and that Shri Jayaprakash Narayan had been arrested at the Gandhi Peace Foundation. Shri Bhrigunath also woke up. Urmilesh Jha told me that Shri Raj Narain, who was inside, had asked me not to get up, otherwise the police might arrest me too. I got up nevertheless. I saw policemen all around. I could not restrain myself and entered the room where Shri Raj Narain was surrounded by the police. He introduced me to the police officers while making preparations to go with them. A warrant was served on Shri Raj Narain, who showed the same to me. It was under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA) and signed by Shri Sushil Kumar, District Magistrate (DM), Delhi. I found that the receiver of Shri Raj Narain’s telephone was put off the hook. I rebuked the police officers for doing so, and told them that they could only arrest Shri Raj Narain and not interfere with other facilities in the house such as the telephone. Urmilesh Jha told me later that Shri K.S. Radhakrishna, Secretary of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, had told him over the phone that Shri Jayaprakash Narayan had been arrested. Shri Raj Narain had his bath and packed some books to take along with him. In the early hours of the morning, he was taken away in a car by the police in my presence. After he left, Smt T. Lakshmi Kantamma, an MP, who was later a member of the Working Committee of the Janata Party, arrived at Raj Narain’s residence. Shri Era Sezhiyan, who was the leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in the Lok Sabha at that time and who was living in the neighbourhood, also arrived there. They both enquired about all that had happened.
The Statesman and the Hindustan Times, Delhi’s two leading newspapers at the time, somehow appeared the next day, though other papers could not appear. The main news was that the President of India had declared National Emergency on account of internal disturbances under Article 352 of the Constitution of India. I went to my residence. Immediately after reaching, I received a phone call from someone from the Hindustan Times who asked for my reaction to the proclamation of the Emergency. I dictated my views on the telephone, stating that there was no national emergency and it was only Smt Indira Gandhi’s own personal emergency as she was in trouble and could not get a full stay order from the Supreme Court. I further stated that as Smt Indira Gandhi, according to democratic norms, must vacate the office she was holding, she had done this mischief merely to keep herself in office. I said that democracy was finished in this country, and that she ought to have resigned on the day when she was found to have committed corrupt practices by Justice J.M.L. Sinha on 12 June 1975.
DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES
We came to know that the power connections of almost all the newspapers in Delhi and outside were disconnected at the instance of the government. On 27 June, there was no newspaper. Along with the Emergency, censorship of the press was introduced, and newspapers were to be published under censorship. In the beginning, for one or two days, the newspapers protested in various ways. The Delhi edition of The Indian Express on 28 June 1975 kept the editorial column blank as a mark of protest. It is said that pressure was exerted on the members of the press to write editorials favourable to the government.
Many political leaders and workers of the Opposition were arrested overnight on 25–26 June, and in the following days. It was a reign of terror in the country. It was not even known to the relations of a detenu as to where the arrested person had been put away. The detenus could not write freely to anyone. Even if a letter was written, it was censored by the jail authorities and there was no guarantee that the letter would reach its destination.
As I was the resident lawyer in Shri Raj Narain’s case in Delhi and Shri Shanti Bhushan was away in Bombay, friends and relatives of almost all the Opposition leaders and workers started coming to me for advice as to what was to be done and how to have interviews with the detenus, especially since the whereabouts of the detenus were not known to them. Shri Jayaprakash Narayan’s brother Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, who was residing in Bombay, also came to Delhi and met me to seek advice on what to do. I telephoned the then Union Home Minister Shri K. Brahmananda Reddy and Shri Om Mehta, who was then the minister of state for home, personnel and parliamentary affairs. I also telephoned the DM, Shri Sushil Kumar. For a number of days, nobody was allowed to talk to them. The modus operandi was that whenever any phone call was made to them for any purpose connected to the detenus, the secretaries and officers would tell the caller that the minister or officer was absent. Sometimes, the minister or officer was alleged to be in the bathroom for a number of hours! I was very agitated to see before my eyes the destruction of all values of democracy in the country.
THREATENING TO BOYCOTT THE CASE
I started threatening the advocates on the other side that we would boycott this case under these circumstances, when it was not even known as to where my client had been taken away. Shri N.A. Palkhivala resigned from Smt Indira Gandhi’s case on 26 June 1975 itself. However, J.B. Dadachanji continued to be her Advocate-on-Record. I told Shri Dadachanji on the telephone that Justice Krishna Iyer had said in his judgement that on the opening day of the Supreme Court after the summer vacations, i.e. 14 July 1975, there would be a mention before the court about fixing a date of hearing and that by that time, the paper books would be ready, but I was not agreeable to participate in the case under the circumstances. It may be pointed out that within the period of limitation, we had also filed our cross-appeals on those points in the case that had been decided against us in the judgement passed by Justice J.M.L. Sinha. The appeal filed by Smt Indira Gandhi was numbered Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 (Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain & Anr) and the cross-appeal filed by us on behalf of Raj Narain was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 (Raj Narain vs Indira Nehru Gandhi). In the afternoon of 26 June, Shri V.M. Tarkunde telephoned and requested me to give him a copy of the judgement of Justice J.M.L. Sinha, which he wanted to study. He told me that he had come from Srinagar. I told him about the arrest of Shri Jayaprakash Narayan and other leaders and about the declaration of the Emergency. He did not know anything at that time. He was surprised about all that had happened.
I was secretly told that Shri H.R. Gokhale was in charge of Smt Indira Gandhi’s appeal in the Supreme Court and everything was being done in consultation with him. As mentioned earlier, I had threatened J.B. Dadachanji that we were going to boycott the case as our client was under detention and I was not even told about his whereabouts or allowed to meet him. It appears that Shri Dadachanji communicated this to Smt Indira Gandhi and Shri H.R. Gokhale. Ultimately, on 4 July 1975, I received a letter from the Delhi Administration to the effect that I could meet Shri Raj Narain in Rohtak Jail the following day.
SETTING UP MEETINGS IN ROHTAK
Through a source, I came to know that Shri Piloo Mody, Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Sikander Bakht, Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri K.R. Malkani, among others, were also lodged in Rohtak Jail. I, along with Urmilesh Jha and Chander Shekhar, the office secretary of the Bharatiya Lok Dal, reached Rohtak and met Shri N.K. Garg, the DM, for arranging my interview with Shri Raj Narain. As I had instructions from relatives and friends of a number of incarcerated leaders to meet them, I asked the DM to show me the rules framed by the state government regarding interviews with detenus under MISA. I found that Rule 14(4) of the Haryana rules, relating to detention of detenus, allowed a detenu to have an interview with an advocate of his choice. The interview was to be held in the presence of a jail official or police officer, but out of their hearing.
Acting under this rule, I wrote separate letters to Shri Asoka Mehta, Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri K.R. Malkani, Shri Sikander Bakht and Shri Piloo Mody to the effect that I had been instructed by their friends and relatives to give them legal advice regarding the validity or otherwise of their detention and that if they wanted to meet me they should express their intention on that very letter. Letters were addressed to them through the DM, Rohtak, who forwarded the same to them in jail. When each one of them expressed their consent to meet me and their consent was received by the DM, he arranged an interview with them. He told me that he would give thirty minutes time for the interview of each detenu. I told him that what was the use if I was to be not allowed to sit with all the detenus at one time and be expected to render separate advice to each detenu every time. I asked him to allow me to sit with all the detenus together. He agreed to this procedure.
To know more, get your copy of ‘Saving India From Indira: Untold Story Of The Emergency‘ here: https://amzn.to/2KyMNy5