SC agrees to examine whether probing constitutionality of declaration of 1975 emergency is feasible after 45 years

BACKGROUND

• The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether or not it can go into the Constitutional validity of the 1975 national emergency proclaimed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

• A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the Central government stating that it will hear the petitioner on the limited aspect of whether the validity of such proclamation can be probed by the Court after passage of "such a long time."

• "We would not be disinclined to see whether probing such a proclamation after such a long time would be feasible or not. We issue notice on prayer (A). Learned senior counsel may restructure the petition. Leave to amend the petition by December 18," the Court said.

FURTHER DETAILS

• The order was passed after hearing Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the petitioner argued that the Court is empowered to examine the validity of the proclamation of emergency.

• "War crimes issues are still heard. Post world war people are raising issues of holocaust now. It (national emergency) was a fraud on the constitution. We must have this decided by this court. I feel very strongly for this. This is not a matter for political debate. Didn't we see what happened to prisoners during emergency," he said.

• The Court was initially not inclined to entertain the matter but subsequently agreed to examine the aspect of whether the validity of the proclamation can be gone into after passage of more than 45 years.

BRIEF OUTLINE ABOUT THE CASE

• The plea filed by 94-year-old Vera Sarin seeks a declaration that the presidential notification proclaiming 1975 national emergency was unconstitutional. Sarin has also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs 25 crores.

• Sarin has claimed that she along with her husband were compelled to leave the country for fear of being thrown into jail, "in pursuance of unjustifiable and arbitrary detention orders issued against her husband."

• In the petition filed through advocate Anannya Ghosh, she has submitted that her late husband was "framed under" Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA).

• Before the emergency, her deceased husband had a flourishing business of gold arts, gems, artefacts etc. at Karol Bagh as well as at KG Marg, New Delhi.

• "Their immovable property came to be seized, the movable property consisting of artefacts, gems, carpets, paintings, tusks, statues, ivory worth crores of rupees were also seized and there has been no restitution of the same till date," the petitioner has claimed.

• After the husband of the petitioner died in 2000, the petitioner had to single-handedly face all legal proceedings initiated against her husband during the emergency period, it was submitted.

• "On many occasions, there used to be knocks on her door (and) policemen and other officials used to enter her home and used to leave her alone only after she offered them leftover pieces of valuables in her home," it has been alleged.

FURTHER EVALUATION

• It has also been also pointed out that after a July 2020 government order, Delhi High Court directed payment of arrears of rent for the property at KG Marg, New Delhi to the Sarin and other legal heirs at a specified monthly rate since 1999.

• Further, the High Court had held in December 2014 that the proceedings under SAFEMA were initiated bereft of any jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.

• "The Petitioner at her advanced age has a simple desire to seek a closure to her trauma and an acknowledgment to her suffering and hence, is filing the present petition," the plea contends.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PLEA? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY? LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!