The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Central Government (Union of India) in a PIL challenging the government notification dated July 13, 2024, declaring June 25 – the day national Emergency was imposed in the country in 1975 – as Samvidhan Hatya Diwas.
Hearing a PIL filed by a Jhansi-based practising advocate Santosh Singh Dohrey, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar directed to fix July 31, 2024, as the next date of hearing.
As the case was taken up on Monday, the counsel representing the central government counsel sought time to obtain instructions in the matter. The court allowed his request and directed him to list this case on July 31.
In the PIL, the petitioner had sought quashing of the Union Government’s notification, published in the Gazette of India on July 13, declaring June 25 — the day that the Emergency was imposed in the country in 1975 — as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’.
The gazette notification under challenge was issued/published on July 13, stating that a proclamation of Emergency was made on June 25, 1975, following which “there was gross abuse of power by the then government of the day and people of India were subjected to excesses and atrocities.” The notification further added that the people of India have faith in the Constitution and the power of India’s resilient democracy.
“Therefore, the government of India declares 25th June as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ to pay tribute to all those who suffered and fought against the gross abuse of power during the period of emergency and to recommit the people of India to not support in any manner such gross abuse of power, in future,” the notification added.
The PIL plea argues that the notification by the central government directly violates the provision of the Constitution of India and directly hits the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The PIL took the plea that the language in the impugned notification is insulting and offending to the Constitution of India because the parliament, as per section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, has declared whoever whether by word, either spoken or written shows disrespect to the Constitution is an offence. The Constitution is our National Honour as per the Act, 1971, and so using the word Constitution with killing (Hatya) is an insult to the Constitution of India committed by the respondents, the PIL plea states.
The PIL plea adds that the proclamation of emergency in 1975 was under the provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondents are wrong in declaring a day of 25th June in the name of “Samvidhan Hatya Diwas” as the Constitution is a living document “which can never die nor anybody can be permitted to destroy it.
The PIL also questions the rationale behind G Parthasarathi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, issuing the impugned notification. The plea argues that, as a senior member of the Indian Administrative Services and an executive of India, Parthasarathi is oath-bound to follow the dictates of the Constitution of India.
However, the plea contends that he issued the notification to please his political superiors and to secure his important position in the administration by currying favour with the political leadership of the Union of India.
The PIL plea lastly contends that all executive actions of the respondent must be expressed in the name of the President of India, as mandated by Article 77 of the Constitution of India. However, the impugned notification does not comply with Article 77, and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, the PIL plea argues that the impugned notification violates Article 77 of the Constitution of India.
====================
