Introduction:

In the case of Amitabh Thakur vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Amitabh Thakur. Thakur challenged the Central Government’s notification declaring June 25, the day Emergency was imposed in 1975, as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’. The bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh concluded that the Court could not interfere in political matters or question the government’s political judgment in issuing the notification.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Amitabh Thakur, represented by Advocates Nutan Thakur and Deepak Kumar, argued that the Central Government’s notification was improper and conveyed an unintended adverse message about the Constitution of India. Thakur contended that the term ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ reiterates the violence against people’s rights during the Emergency but argued that it was inaccurate to suggest that the Constitution itself was killed.

The petitioner further argued that if the Constitution had indeed been ‘killed’, democracy would not have been revived when the people ousted the government in subsequent General Elections. Thakur’s counsel suggested that the government could have used more appropriate and positive terminology, such as ‘Samvidhan Raksha Diwas’, to remind people of the excesses committed during the Emergency without implying that the Constitution was destroyed.

Additionally, Thakur’s counsel submitted that the notification could negatively influence public perception of the Constitution and argued that the government should have used language that more accurately reflected the historical events.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents, representing the Central Government, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that Thakur had failed to disclose complete credentials. They pointed out that while Thakur identified himself as a social and political activist with a notable academic and professional background, he did not disclose that he is accused of instigating a rape victim’s suicide outside the Supreme Court premises.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner’s failure to disclose this information was significant and should be considered in evaluating the credibility and intentions behind the PIL. They argued that the government’s notification was within its political purview and aimed to remind the public of the significant events and excesses during the Emergency.

Moreover, the respondents asserted that the Court should refrain from intervening in political decisions and questioned whether the judiciary should examine the appropriateness of the terminology used in the government’s notification.

Court’s Judgement:

The Allahabad High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, refused to grant any effective remedy and disposed of the PIL. The bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, concluded that the matter fell within the political domain and was not subject to judicial review.

The Court observed, “This Court, having heard the counsel for the petitioner at some length, is of the considered opinion that it is the lookout of the Government for declaration to be made with regard to the excesses caused by the proclamation of Emergency on 25.06.1975. The Court cannot enter into the political thicket and cannot question the political wisdom of the Government in issuing such a notification, as has been challenged in this writ petition.”

The judges emphasized that the judiciary should not delve into political matters or question the government’s political decisions, reiterating that the declaration of ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ was within the government’s discretion. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but ultimately found no basis to interfere with the government’s notification.