The Crisis of Democratic Order | Class 12 Political Science
This chapter looks at the period when Indian politics witnessed a sharp rift between Indira Gandhi and other prominent leaders. It covers the most talked about era in independent India's political history, the Emergency of 1975 to 1977, and studies both the causes and the consequences of that period. These are Class 12 Political Science study notes, and you can find the full set in our Class 12 Political Science notes.
Key dates at a glance
- 1971: The Congress wins the general election on the slogan Garibi Hatao; the Bangladesh crisis and a war with Pakistan follow.
- January 1974: Student protests begin in Gujarat over rising prices and corruption.
- March 1974: A student movement starts in Bihar and invites Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) to lead it.
- 12 June 1975: The Allahabad High Court declares Indira Gandhi's 1971 election invalid.
- 25 June 1975: A state of Emergency is proclaimed under Article 352.
- 1976: The 42nd Amendment is passed and the Supreme Court upholds the suspension of rights.
- 1977: Elections are held, the Janata Party wins, and the Congress is defeated for the first time since Independence.
- 1980: The Congress returns to power.
Conflict among the two pillars
Indira Gandhi had risen to become the dominant leader of the country. This was also a period of intense party struggle, with growing tension between the executive and the judiciary.
Several government measures were struck down by the Supreme Court as constitutional violations. The Congress party argued that the Court's position went against democratic and legislative supremacy and was obstructing pro-poor welfare programmes.
The opposition parties felt that government authority was being turned into personal authority. The split in the Congress had already deepened the gap between Indira Gandhi and her opponents.
How was the Indian economy affected?
The Congress campaigned on the slogan Garibi Hatao in the 1971 elections, but social and economic conditions did not improve much. The 1971 to 1972 Bangladesh crisis led to a war with Pakistan, after which the United States withdrew its aid to India.
Oil prices also rose sharply on the world market. This pushed up commodity prices in general, which jumped by 23 per cent in 1973 and 30 per cent in 1974.
There was little industrial growth and high unemployment, especially in rural areas. To save money, the government froze the pay of its employees, which added to their discontent.
In 1972 a monsoon failure caused a sharp fall in agricultural output. Student unrest grew, and Marxist parties that rejected parliamentary politics gained ground.
These groups turned to arms and insurgency in order to destabilise the existing economic and political order. The Marxist-Leninist (now Maoist) groups are known as the Naxalites. They were especially strong in West Bengal, where the state government took harsh steps to crush them.
The Gujarat and Bihar uprisings
Student protests in Gujarat and Bihar had a deep effect on state and national politics.
In January 1974, students in Gujarat began a protest against rising prices of food grain, cooking oil and other essential goods, and against high-level corruption. The protest was backed by the major opposition parties and spread widely, leading to President's Rule being imposed in the state.
The opposition demanded fresh elections. Morarji Desai, a senior leader of the Congress (O) and Indira Gandhi's main rival, said he would go on an indefinite fast if the state did not hold fresh elections.
Assembly elections were held in Gujarat in June 1975 under heavy pressure from students and opposition parties, and the Congress was defeated.
In March 1974, Bihar saw a similar student rebellion against rising prices, food scarcity, unemployment and corruption.
JP Narayan in Bihar
The students invited Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), a former active politician who had turned to social work, to lead their movement. He agreed on the condition that the movement would remain non-violent and would not be limited to Bihar.
The students' movement now took on a political dimension and won wide support, with people from many walks of life joining the cause. Jayaprakash Narayan demanded the resignation of Bihar's Congress government and called for a total revolution in the social, economic and political spheres.
Bandhs, gheraos and strikes were held when the Bihar government refused to resign. The movement grew and began to influence national politics, and railway employees called for a nationwide strike that threatened to paralyse the country.
In 1975, JP led a people's march to Parliament. He was now backed by non-Congress parties such as the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Lok Dal and the Socialist Party. His ideas and his politics of mass agitation also drew many criticisms.
What were the conflicts between the ruling party and the judiciary?
The following questions emerged:
- Can Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights?
- Can Parliament curtail the right to property by making an amendment?
The Constitution was amended to allow Parliament to abridge Fundamental Rights in order to give effect to the Directive Principles. All these provisions were overturned by the Supreme Court, which created a crisis in the relationship between the government and the Court.
The famous Kesavananda Bharati case brought this dispute to a head. In this case the Court ruled that there are certain basic features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot change.
The friction between the judiciary and the executive was made worse by two further events. A vacancy for the post of Chief Justice of India arose almost immediately after the Supreme Court's judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
It had been the custom to appoint the senior most judge of the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. In 1973, however, A. N. Ray was appointed over three more senior justices. Because all three of the judges who were passed over had ruled against the government's position, this appointment became politically controversial.
Political ideology and constitutional interpretation were becoming increasingly entangled. The High Court judgement declaring Indira Gandhi's election invalid was the climax of this struggle.
Why was the Emergency declared?
Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha was declared invalid by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court on 12 June 1975. The decision came in response to an election petition filed by Raj Narain, a socialist politician who had run against her in 1971.
He challenged her election, alleging that she had used government employees in her election campaign. Because of the judgement she was no longer a member of Parliament and so could not continue as Prime Minister unless she was re-elected as an MP within six months.
The Supreme Court granted her a partial stay of the High Court's judgement until her appeal was decided. She could remain an MP but could not take part in Lok Sabha proceedings.
The response to the crisis
The stage was set for a major political showdown. The opposition parties, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, demanded Indira Gandhi's resignation and staged a large protest. JP called for a nationwide Satyagraha for her resignation and asked the army, the police and government staff not to obey "illegal and immoral orders".
The government responded by declaring a state of Emergency. On 25 June 1975 it declared that there was a threat of internal disturbance and invoked Article 352 of the Constitution. Under this article the government could declare an Emergency if there was an external threat or a threat of internal disturbance.
When an Emergency is declared, the federal division of powers is effectively suspended and authority is centralised in the hands of the union government. During an Emergency the government also has the power to restrict or take away all or some of the Fundamental Rights.
On the night of 25 June 1975 the Prime Minister advised President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare an Emergency. After the proclamation, the electricity to the major newspaper offices was cut off soon after midnight, and a large number of opposition leaders and workers were arrested. Only afterwards was the Cabinet informed, at a special meeting held at 6 a.m. on 26 June.
What did the Emergency mean in practice?
Strikes were banned, many opposition leaders were jailed, and the political atmosphere became very quiet. The government imposed restrictions on press freedom, and newspapers had to get prior approval for anything they wished to publish. This is known as press censorship.
The government banned the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Jamaat-e-Islami. Protests, strikes and other forms of public agitation were also prohibited. Citizens' Fundamental Rights, including the right to approach the Court for the restoration of those rights, were suspended.
Preventive detention was used widely. Under it, people are arrested and held not because they have committed an offence, but because they are suspected of being about to commit one. Many cases were filed by and on behalf of the arrested people in the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but the government argued that it was not even necessary to tell them the reasons for their arrest.
Even after the Emergency was declared, several High Courts gave rulings in favour of the detained. In April 1976, however, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court overruled the High Courts and accepted the government's plea. It meant that the government could take away a citizen's right to life and liberty during an Emergency. This decision effectively closed the courts to citizens and is widely seen as one of the Supreme Court's most controversial judgements. Many activists who were not jailed in the first wave went underground and organised protests against the government.
Newspapers such as the Indian Express and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where banned news items would have appeared. Rather than accept censorship, some magazines chose to shut down. Many journalists were arrested for writing against the Emergency, and to get around censorship a number of underground newsletters and leaflets were circulated.
In protest against the suspension of democracy, the Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth, who held the Padma Bhushan, and the Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu, who held the Padma Shri, returned their honours.
Parliament also passed several new amendments to the Constitution. One amendment, passed after the Allahabad High Court's judgement in the Indira Gandhi case, said that the election of the Prime Minister, the President and the Vice-President could not be challenged in court.
During the Emergency the 42nd Amendment was also passed. It made so many changes that it is sometimes called a mini Constitution. One of its many changes extended the term of the country's legislatures from five years to six years, and this change was meant to be permanent, not just for the Emergency. Elections can also be postponed by a year during an Emergency, which is why the general election that was due by 1976 was pushed to 1978.
What were the main points of contention?
The Emergency is one of the most controversial periods in Indian politics. There are different views on whether it was necessary to declare it. One argument is that the government effectively halted democratic functioning by using powers granted by the Constitution itself. The Shah Commission, set up after the Emergency, found that many excesses had been committed during it.
Was the Emergency necessary?
Although the Constitution mentioned internal disturbance as a ground for declaring an Emergency, no Emergency had ever been declared on this ground before 1975. Riots had broken out in some parts of the country, but critics argued that this was not enough to justify a nationwide Emergency.
The government claimed that in a democracy the ruling party must be allowed to govern according to its policies. Supporters of Indira Gandhi argued that extra-parliamentary agitation against the government is not acceptable in a democracy, that it causes unrest and distracts the government from its main task of ensuring development.
In a letter to the Shah Commission, Indira Gandhi claimed that subversive forces were trying to block the government's progressive programmes and to remove her from office by extra-constitutional means. The CPI, which supported the Congress throughout the Emergency, claimed that there was an international conspiracy against India's unity and that some limits on agitation were needed. It believed that the JP movement was mainly driven by the middle class, though after the Emergency it admitted that its assessment had been wrong.
Critics of the Emergency pointed out that Indian politics had a long history of public protest going back to the freedom movement. JP and many other opposition leaders believed that in a democracy citizens have the right to criticise the government in public. The agitations in Bihar and Gujarat were largely peaceful and non-violent. Those arrested were never charged with any anti-national act, and most of the detainees faced no charges at all.
The Home Ministry, which is responsible for monitoring the internal situation, had also expressed no serious worry. Critics argued that the government already had enough powers to deal with the situation, and that the real threat was to the ruling party and the Prime Minister rather than to the unity and integrity of the country. They claim that Indira Gandhi used a provision meant to protect the nation in order to protect her own personal power.
What happened during the Emergency?
Many questions were raised about the misuse of the Emergency provisions. The government said the Emergency would be used to restore peace and order, improve efficiency and, above all, carry out pro-poor social programmes.
Indira Gandhi's government announced a twenty point programme and said it was committed to putting it into practice. It included land reforms, redistribution of land, a review of agricultural wages, worker participation in management and the abolition of bonded labour.
In the first months, much of the urban middle class was pleased that the agitations had ended and that government offices seemed more disciplined. Critics of the Emergency say that most of these promises were never kept and that the programme was only a way of diverting attention from the excesses.
The Shah Commission
According to the Shah Commission, about one lakh eleven thousand people were arrested under preventive detention laws, and the use of preventive detention was itself questioned. Press restrictions were imposed, sometimes without proper legal backing.
The Commission's report noted that the General Manager of the Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on 26 June 1975 to cut off electricity to all newspaper presses at 2 a.m. Power was restored two to three days later, once the censorship system had been set up.
At the time, Sanjay Gandhi, the Prime Minister's younger son, held no official position. Even so, he came to exercise great control over the government, and he became controversial for his role in the demolitions and the forced sterilisation drive in Delhi. These examples show what can happen when the democratic process is disrupted.
The lessons of the Emergency
The Emergency exposed both the weaknesses and the strengths of India's democracy at the same time. One lesson is that it is extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India.
Second, it revealed serious ambiguities in the Emergency provisions of the Constitution, which have since been corrected. Now an internal Emergency can be declared only on the ground of armed rebellion, and the Council of Ministers must advise the President in writing before an Emergency can be declared.
Third, the Emergency made people much more aware of the value of civil liberties, and after it the courts too took a more active role in protecting citizens' rights.
The police and the administration were responsible for carrying out the Emergency, and they could not act on their own. The Shah Commission Report noted that they were turned into political tools of the ruling party, and that the administration and the police became sensitive to political demands. This problem did not disappear once the Emergency was over.
How did politics change after the Emergency?
The most valuable and lasting lesson of the Emergency was learnt as soon as it ended and the Lok Sabha elections were announced. The 1977 elections became a referendum on the experience of the Emergency, at least in north India where its impact was felt most strongly.
The opposition fought the election on the slogan of "save democracy", and the people's verdict was decisively against the Emergency. The lesson was clear, and it has been repeated in many state elections since: governments that are seen as anti-democratic are severely punished by the voters. The experience of 1975 to 1977 ended up strengthening the foundations of democracy in India.
The Lok Sabha elections of 1977
After eighteen months of Emergency, the government decided to hold elections and released the leaders and activists from jail. The opposition had very little time, but events moved very fast, and the major opposition parties came together to form a new party, the Janata Party.
The new party accepted the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, and some Congress leaders who had opposed the Emergency also joined it. A few other Congress leaders came out and formed a separate party under Jagjivan Ram, called the Congress for Democracy, which later merged with the Janata Party.
The Janata Party made the election a referendum on the Emergency, focusing its campaign on the non-democratic character of the government and on the various excesses of that period. The formation of the Janata Party also made sure that the non-Congress vote would not be divided, and it was clear that the going would be hard for the Congress.
The final results surprised everyone. For the first time since Independence, the Congress was defeated in a Lok Sabha election. The Congress lost every seat in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab, and won only one seat each in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Indira Gandhi was defeated at Rae Bareli, and her son Sanjay Gandhi lost at Amethi.
The Congress did not lose everywhere, however. It kept many seats in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Orissa and almost swept the southern states, because the forced relocations and forced sterilisations had been concentrated mainly in the northern states. The middle castes of north India were beginning to move away from the Congress, and the Janata Party became a platform for many of these sections to come together. The elections of 1977 were therefore not only about the Emergency.
The Janata Party government
The Janata Party government came to power after the 1977 elections. Three leaders were in the running for Prime Minister: Morarji Desai, who had been Indira Gandhi's rival since 1966 to 1967; Charan Singh, leader of the Bharatiya Lok Dal and a farmers' leader from Uttar Pradesh; and Jagjivan Ram, who had long experience as a senior minister in Congress governments.
Morarji Desai eventually became Prime Minister, but the power struggle inside the party did not end there. Opposition to the Emergency could hold the Janata Party together only for a short time, and the government was unable to bring in policies that were very different from those of the Congress.
In less than eighteen months the Janata Party split, and Morarji Desai's government lost its majority. A new government led by Charan Singh was formed with the promise of Congress support, but the Congress soon withdrew its support and the Charan Singh government lasted only about four months.
Fresh Lok Sabha elections were held in January 1980, in which the Janata Party was heavily defeated, especially in north India where it had swept the polls in 1977, and Indira Gandhi's Congress came close to repeating its earlier triumph. The experience of 1977 to 1979 gave another lesson in democratic politics: voters punish governments that are seen as unstable and quarrelsome.
Was it simply Indira Gandhi's return?
Between 1977 and 1980 the political landscape had changed a great deal. The Congress had begun to lose its image as an umbrella organisation that brought together leaders and workers of many ideologies, and it now identified itself with a particular ideology, claiming to be the only socialist and pro-poor party in the country.
Its success in the early 1970s had depended on winning voters across deep social and ideological lines, along with the personal appeal of one leader, Indira Gandhi. As the nature of the Congress changed, the other opposition parties came to rely more and more on what is known in Indian politics as non-Congressism. They also saw the need to avoid a split in the non-Congress vote, which played a big part in the 1977 elections, and a shift among the backward castes of north India also shaped the outcome.
In 1977, several states held Assembly elections after the Lok Sabha elections, and leaders of the backward castes played a key role in bringing non-Congress governments to power in the northern states. The issue of reservations for other backward classes became very contentious in Bihar, which led the Janata Party government at the centre to set up the Mandal Commission.
The post-Emergency elections began a process of change in the party system. Because it grew out of a constitutional fight between the powers of Parliament and the courts, the Emergency and the period around it can be described as a moment of constitutional crisis. It was also a time of political upheaval: even with an absolute majority, the ruling party's leadership chose to put the democratic process on hold.
The makers of the Constitution had assumed that all political parties would broadly follow democratic norms, and that even when the government used extraordinary powers in an emergency it would stay within the rule of law. That assumption led to the government being given wide and almost unlimited powers during an emergency, which were misused, and this was a deeper political crisis than a purely constitutional one. Another important question raised at this time was the role and limits of mass protest in a parliamentary democracy. There is a real tension between democracy based on institutions and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation, which can be traced to the party system's difficulty in accommodating people's aspirations.
Why it still matters
The Emergency is not just an exam topic. It stays alive in Indian public life. The year 2025 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of 25 June 1975, and the argument over what that period meant is still very much open.
In July 2024 the Government of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Culture, formally notified 25 June as Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas, which can be read as a day to remember the assault on the Constitution. The official notice says the day honours everyone who suffered and resisted the misuse of power during the Emergency, and the government is observing it across the country from 25 June 2024 to 25 June 2026 to mark the fifty year milestone. Whatever one's view of the politics behind it, the fact that a modern government has created an official day about a chapter from your textbook shows how raw this memory still is.
The bigger questions in this chapter, whether elected leaders can suspend rights, whether courts can be pressured, and whether a free press can be silenced, are live questions around the world, not only in India's past. In its Democracy Report 2025, the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg found that autocracies now outnumber democracies for the first time in more than two decades, and that most of the world's people live under some form of autocratic rule. That is exactly why the Emergency is taught: it shows how quickly a democracy can bend, and how voters, courts and a free press can push back. You can explore how democracy works across different countries on the Learnacy Hub, and browse more study notes and resources to connect this chapter with the wider world.