Fifty years ago, the Indian democracy faced its gravest constitutional threat. The imposition of emergency on June 25th, 2025, followed by trampling over dissenting voices and suppression of civil liberties, appeared like the eclipse of a nascent democratic republic’s promise with the shadow of autocratic authoritarianism
The 21-month-long censorship of the press, mass arrest, and centralisation of power in the hands of an unaccountable executive marked the nadir of Indian democracy. The admission registers of various jails across India, and especially Tihar Jail Delhi, are a testament to the same. Today, as we reflect on the semicentennial of the emergency, the shadow of the period looms large. It is important to remember it not as an unpleasant, distant memory but as a cautionary tale, aiding the republic to navigate future polity.
The emergency was the consequential outcome of power-seeking political masters trying to negate the effect of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr. (1975). Though it was initiated by the executive branch of the state, it caused institutional paralysis. Rather than being a political aberration, it was a systemic failure of institutional safeguards.
The judicial capitulation in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) exposed the fragility of the constitutional guarantee of checks and balances. The judiciary completely surrendered itself to the whims and fancies of the executive branch of state by declaring that ‘habeas corpus could be suspended during emergencies’. The legislative branch was no different. Parliament, bent in subservience, is becoming a rubber stamp of the executive, losing its conscience. The press, regarded as the fourth and unalienable pillar of democracy, succumbed to censorship, barring a few notable exceptions. The ones who withstood the test of time, JHR. Khanna from the judiciary, or The Indian Express from the media, is the north star of the Indian democracy.
Democratic Resilience and Contemporary Challenges
Indian democracy has demonstrated remarkable resilience since the inception of democracy. The democratic republic, guaranteed and operating within the constitutional framework, has kept its promises, except for just one aberration, which was too 50 years ago. The current administration has emphasised governance reforms and national security, citing the electoral mandate as a basis of policy decisions. However, the robustness of democracy lies not just in the outcome but also in the process that sustains it.
No parallel exists in the Indian constitutional political history to the emergency’s suspension of rights. However constitutional scholars have shown concerns pertaining to expansive interpretations of executive power, delayed judicial appointments, use of stringent laws against dissent, and reduced quality of debates in parliament. There is always a threat to democracy with the centralisation of power, consequently resulting in the weakening of autonomous bodies like the Election Commission and coercive one-sided action of investigative agencies against the opposition. The diminished quality of debate is a tall concern in front of any mature democracy. The parliament has started running on bluster and name-calling. The shrinking space for parliamentary debates is concerning for democracy. The speaker Om Birla, while speaking to Hindustan Times, says, “Lawmakers must enhance people’s faith in parliament.” The advice of seniors should be taken seriously.
The mainstream media appears susceptible to majoritarian narratives due to the race for television rating points (TRP). This fails in its crucial role as a watchdog of democracy. The executive and conventional media have not successfully countered the pervasive misinformation and disinformation due to the rise of social media. More information will counter misinformation is a naïve view of information. This pressing issue needs a strategic response from the state. A thriving democracy requires foresighted leadership coupled with strong institutional safeguards to be sustained.
Recalibrating Constitutional Safeguards
The Supreme Court of India should maintain civil liberties on a high pedestal, and an objective test should be developed to ensure the validity of detentions. When it comes to criticism of the judiciary, the wide unchecked discretion brings the judiciary into the spotlight. The judiciary should frame objective parameters for its executive and judicial functions. The appointment and transfer of judges, vis-à-vis case allotment, should be based on well-devised objective checks. The judicial appointments must be insulated from executive interference, but to ensure the credibility of the judicial appointments, the judiciary should go through internal reforms. This will give the judiciary a moral ground. The judiciary is the custodian of the constitution; naturally, expectations would be high. The institution should remember that ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The decline of parliamentary debates reflects hasty legislation with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. A ‘constructive’ and ’empowered’ opposition plays a seminal role in a democratic form of polity. Constructive opposition is a pro-people voice in parliament. Cross-party committees and adherence to legislative deliberations are non-negotiable for executive accountability.
The parliamentary composition should also be carefully looked at. 93 per cent of the candidates who won the 2024 Lok Sabha elections are millionaires. As per the 2023 report of the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), 40 per cent of MPs, that is, 306 parliamentarians, have declared criminal cases, and around 25% of MPs, that is, 194 parliamentarians, have declared serious criminal cases against them in their election affidavits. The report also showed that the average worth of assets per parliamentarian from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha was ₹38.33 crore, and 7 per cent were billionaires. The problem is even more severe in Telangana, followed by Andhra Pradesh. In Telangana, the average assets of a parliamentarian are Rs 262.26 crore, and in Andhra Pradesh, it is Rs 150.76 crore. For a representative democracy, the parliament also has to be protected from the elite, wealth-concentrated demographic’s undue influence.
Press freedom is democracy’s first line of defence. Laws like the Press Council Act, 1978, must be strengthened. The civil societies must be strengthened. The emergency saw centralisation and consolidation of power in one hand. Cooperative federalism must be more than a slogan in everyday politics.
The constructive lesson from the emergency is about recognising what causes the erosion of democracy, and the erosion is often incremental for the democratic health of a country. In functioning democracies, the first line of the problem is legalistic repression. The Indian constitution was drafted with profound foresight, but Dr Ambedkar’s message delivered to the whole nation on November 25th, 1949, speaking in CAD, must be taken seriously when he says, “However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot. The working of a constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the constitution”. Therefore, the parchment barriers do not suffice to keep the country on a democratic track; rather, the constitutional spirit is important to be carried in life and spirit.
The Constitution is only as strong as its defenders. To prevent democratic backsliding, India must recalibrate institutional safeguards. The fiftieth anniversary of the Emergency must not be taken as nostalgia but as a day of reaffirmation and commitment to the constitutional ideals and values. The foresight requires strengthening the spirit of the constitution, rather than mere statutory reforms. The question is not whether history will repeat itself but whether we have learnt sufficiently from the past to stop it.
