Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, talks about how the judiciary changed after the 1975 Emergency. Earlier, courts had a narrow view of fundamental rights, but now they take a broader approach. He highlights the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring social justice, fairness, and constitutional values. While progress has been made, challenges like delays, high legal costs, and misinformation still exist. He emphasizes the need for more reforms to maintain trust in the judiciary.
New Delhi: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said on Tuesday that the way courts in India think and work changed a lot after the Emergency in 1975, which he called a dark chapter in India’s democracy.
During this time, Indira Gandhi’s Congress government unfairly passed over his uncle, Justice H.R. Khanna, and made Justice M.H. Beg the Chief Justice in 1977 instead.
Speaking at a ceremonial full court session to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s first sitting in 1950, CJI Khanna noted that the 1950s represented a “sunrise” period for the Supreme Court, while the subsequent decade, marked by an increase in the number of judges from eight to fourteen, was characterized by “anchorage and discovery.”
He referred to the 1970s and 1980s as “years of turbulence leading the way to social justice and equity jurisprudence.”
In his address, he recalled the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973, where the Supreme Court, by a narrow margin, established the “basic structure theory” to identify the unamendable aspects of the Constitution an outcome that opposed Indira Gandhi’s intentions, with Justice H.R. Khanna playing a critical role in the majority opinion.
This was followed by the ADM Jabalpur case, where Justice Khanna authored the sole dissenting opinion, asserting that Emergency powers could not infringe upon the right to life, which he deemed essential for a nation’s existence.
CJI Khanna stated,
“In the initial years, the Supreme Court had interpreted all fundamental rights as rights working in exclusive silos. This judicial attitude, however, underwent a significant change after the Emergency was imposed in 1975.”
He cited the 1978 Maneka Gandhi case, which held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 were interrelated and should be interpreted together.
He emphasized that while the Constitution established a strong central government, it also advocated for a balanced federal structure, a principle affirmed by a nine-judge bench in the S.R. Bommai case as a fundamental feature of the Constitution.
He added,
“The Bommai judgment also has implications for the secular fabric of India. The Supreme Court has ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.”
Kapil Sibal, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, echoed the sentiment that the Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution, especially in the face of challenges to constitutional values that pose significant issues.
CJI Khanna noted that the 1990s marked an era of consolidation and expansion of fundamental rights within the Supreme Court.
He remarked,
“The last two decades of the 21st century stand as a testament to the Supreme Court’s evolving role in our constitutional framework.”
Addressing future challenges, the CJI pointed out three key issues,
“First, the weight of arrears continues to delay justice. Second, the mounting costs of litigation threaten true accessibility. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, justice cannot thrive where and when falsehood is practiced.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
