Emergency: Justice Sinha never 'regretted' decision disqualifying Indira Gandhi, his son says

Lucknow: Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, whose historic verdict on June 12, 1975, disqualifying the then prime minister Indira Gandhi, sparked a chain of events culminating in a 21-month-long Emergency, never "regretted" his decision.

"My father neither regretted delivering the judgment, for he did what was right. For him it was yet another case; he decided on merit and facts," Justice (retired) Vipin Sinha, son of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, told PTI in a telephonic interview.

"What's more, nobody could say that he later tried to extract any benefit for the order to disqualify the then PM from this regime or that. Nobody can say that he was the beneficiary of the order," Justice (retired) Vipin Sinha said.

An Emergency was imposed in India from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977, with then president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed issuing an order under Article 352 of the Constitution citing prevailing "internal disturbance" for the decision that witnessed unprecedented suppression of fundamental rights, sparking widespread resentment.

He said his father, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, was never afraid of the decision he would be making.

"He wouldn't have delivered the judgment had he felt afraid or anything.

"He must have been aware of the consequences, that too against Mrs Indira Gandhi, who at that point in time was all powerful. The easiest way out would have been to dismiss the petition, but he didn't do that," Justice (retd) Vipin said.

"When the Emergency was imposed, I was in class XI. Yes, there were occasional anonymous calls threatening my father that he would be arrested soon, but from what I remember, there never was any pressure on our family.

"Those were the days of the landline phone, so there was no telling who was behind those phone calls," he added.

"On occasions the callers would claim that police were out to arrest my father, but since nothing of that sort ever happened, those anonymous calls mostly appeared to be mischievous," he said.

Reflecting on the Emergency period, he said, "For the people, those were tough times indeed. The information about those times is now in the public domain -- how students were harassed, arrested. The press was muzzled, political leaders were detained and imprisoned, and fundamental rights stood suspended."

Asked how he would rate his father's historic judgment, he said, "It is not for me to rate the judgment. The judgment is always between the parties involved. Irrespective of their status, the winning party applauds the decision, and the other one condemns it."

"A judge is required to decide the case as per law without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. The status of the parties or its consequence is not for the judge to consider. The Representation of the People Act prescribes that certain acts, if committed, would amount to corrupt practice. If a corrupt practice is established, the consequence or the punishment has to be as per the mandate of law prevalent at that time.

"There is no discretion available to the court," he added.

Asked if he could recall his father's emotions once he returned after having delivered the judgment, he said, "My father didn't share anything; as far as he was concerned, he had dealt with just another case. Matters of the high court were not discussed in the house. Parents at that time used to be very strict. So from what I remember, his reaction was very normal after the decision," Sinha said.

"Even my mother wasn't very inquisitive about the decision. If you want to know whether she asked my father about the developments that led to the decision my father made, let me tell you that nothing of this sort happened," he added.

The historic judgment was delivered in Courtroom 24 (now renumbered as 34).

"Before my elevation to the bench, I was a lawyer and, as such, had seen all the courtrooms. Court number 24, now numbered 34, happened to be one of them," Justice Vipin Sinha said.

"All I can say is that any action that affects the fundamental rights of the citizens, whether in the garb of Emergency or otherwise, should be condemned, as it runs against the basic concept of democracy," he said when pressed for his views on the Emergency.