Mentor’s Comment:  On U.S. Independence Day, reflections by Judge J. Michael Luttig and a look back at India’s 1975 Emergency give a strong warning about how democracy can be weakened from within. It compares how Indira Gandhi misused the Constitution in India to how leaders like Donald Trump show signs of authoritarianism in America. It highlights that freedom and rights can be lost not by war, but by twisting laws and failing institutions. The Emergency period still feels relevant today, as many democracies around the world face similar dangers. It’s a reminder that constant vigilance is the price of liberty.

Today’s editorial analyses the  1975 Emergency and its impact in India. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

The same problems that caused the Emergency in India are now putting the U.S. at risk. The lesson is that tyranny grows when important institutions stop doing their job.

What Constitutional gaps enabled the 1975 Emergency’s misuse?

• Vague Grounds for Proclaiming Emergency (Article 352): The term “internal disturbance” (before it was amended to “armed rebellion” by the 44th Amendment) was undefined, allowing the government to declare an Emergency without sufficient justification.
• Lack of Judicial Safeguards: The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, failed to protect fundamental rights. In the ADM Jabalpur case (1976), the Court ruled that even the right to life could be suspended, revealing a serious weakness in judicial independence and constitutional checks.
• Absence of Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms: There was no mandatory review or time limit for an Emergency once proclaimed. Parliament was not empowered to effectively question or revoke the declaration, enabling prolonged executive overreach.
• Preventive Detention Laws without Safeguards: Laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) allowed for the detention of individuals without trial, and the suspension of habeas corpus, giving the executive near-total control over personal freedoms.

How did the Emergency weaken democratic institutions in India?

• Suppressing the Free Press: The government imposed pre-censorship on newspapers like The Indian Express and The Statesman, curbing freedom of the press. Journalists were jailed, and dissenting voices silenced, eroding media independence.
• Paralysing the Legislature and Bureaucracy: Parliament became a rubber stamp, passing ordinances and amendments without real debate. Civil servants and ministers followed orders unquestioningly, prioritising loyalty over legality, thereby hollowing out institutional integrity.

Why is India’s Emergency relevant to the current global democratic decline?

• Authoritarianism through Legal Means: The 1975 Emergency showed how laws can be manipulated to suspend rights and suppress dissent without military coups. Today, similar tactics are used globally — leaders use legal loopholes and executive decrees to weaken democratic norms (e.g., Hungary’s rule-by-decree during the COVID-19 pandemic).
• Erosion of Institutional Independence: During the Emergency, judiciary, media, and civil services failed to resist executive overreach. This institutional submission mirrors current trends in several democracies where checks and balances are compromised under pressure (e.g., judiciary weakening in Turkey and political pressure on U.S. law enforcement).
• Cult of Personality and Centralised Power: Indira Gandhi’s consolidation of power and her son’s parallel command structure resemble modern populist leadershipsthat centralise authority, undermine opposition, and control narratives (e.g., executive overreach in Brazil, Philippines, or even Russia).

What ethical duties do institutions hold in resisting authoritarianism?

• Upholding Constitutional Values: Institutions like the judiciary, legislature, and civil services must prioritise the Constitution over political loyalty, ensuring that democratic principles, civil liberties, and rule of law are never compromised.
• Maintaining Institutional Independence: Institutions have a duty to remain independent and impartial, resisting pressure from the executive or ruling parties. This includes protecting dissent, enabling checks and balances, and avoiding complicity in authoritarian overreach.
• Defending Public Trust and Accountability: Ethical responsibility requires institutions to serve the public interest, not individual leaders. They must ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability, especially during crises when democratic norms are most vulnerable.

How can citizens safeguard democracy from internal threats?

• Active Civic Participation: Citizens must engage in democratic processes such as voting, peaceful protest, and public discourse to hold leaders accountable. Eg: Mass movements like India’s JP Movement in the 1970s or the U.S. Civil Rights Movement helped restore democratic accountability.
• Demanding Transparency and Accountability: Citizens should question government actions, demand answers through RTI, media, and civil society platforms, and resist normalisation of unconstitutional acts. Eg: Public pressure during India’s anti-corruption movement (2011) led to the Lokpal Act.
• Promoting Constitutional Literacy and Vigilance: A well-informed public is less likely to fall for authoritarian rhetoric. Citizens must educate themselves about constitutional rights and duties, enabling them to recognize and resist erosion of democratic norms.

Way forward: 

• Strengthen Institutional Independence: Ensure autonomy of key democratic institutions like the judiciary, election commission, and media through legal safeguards and transparent appointments to resist political influence.
• Promote Constitutional Literacy and Civic Engagement: Launch nationwide awareness campaigns and integrate constitutional values into education to empower citizens to uphold democratic principles and resist authoritarianism.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now