The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the observance of June 25 as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Divas,’ which commemorates those who resisted the 1975 National Emergency. The day honors the victims and fighters against the Emergency’s excesses imposed by the Indian government.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Central government’s notification to observe June 25 as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Divas.’ This day is meant to pay tribute to those who suffered and fought against the National Emergency imposed in 1975 by the Indian government.
A former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, Amitabh Thakur, had filed the petition, taking objection to the terminology used in the July 13 notification. Thakur sought a more appropriate term, such as ‘Samvidhaan Raksha Diwas,’ to better convey the intent of the notification.
However, a Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that these decisions fall within the political realm and are not subject to judicial review.
The Bench noted-
“Upon hearing the petitioner’s counsel extensively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the declaration regarding the excesses resulting from the proclamation of Emergency on 25.06.1975 falls within the purview of the Government. The Court cannot intrude into the political domain or question the Government’s political judgment in issuing the challenged notification, as presented in this writ petition.”
Thakur argued that the government’s notification was improper and would convey an adverse message to the public about the Constitution. He emphasized that the general population may not understand the implications of the term ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas.’ Instead, Thakur suggested that the government could have used a more positive term like ‘Samvidhaan Raksha Diwas,’ as the notification’s intent was to remind the people of India of the excesses committed during the Emergency.
According to Thakur, using the term ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ reiterates the violence inflicted on people’s rights during the Emergency. He argued, however, that it could not be said that the Constitution itself was killed. Thakur added that if the government believed the Constitution was ‘killed,’ it would not have been possible for democracy to revive when the people of India ousted the government in general elections after the Emergency was lifted.
The Central government raised a preliminary objection to the plea, contending that Thakur, while identifying himself as a social and political activist, failed to disclose that he was accused of instigating a rape victim’s suicide outside the Supreme Court premises. In response, Thakur’s counsel argued that despite the addition of Rule 3A to Chapter 22 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, there is no requirement to state on affidavit whether a petitioner is an accused in a criminal case.
After hearing both sides, the Court refused to grant relief and disposed of the plea. Advocate Deepak Kumar and Nutan Thakur appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Surya Bhan Pandey and advocate Varun Pandey represented the Central government.
The Delhi High Court also recently dismissed a PIL challenging the government’s move to observe ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Divas.’ Another petition raising the same issue is pending before the Allahabad High Court.