Allahabad HC seeks Centre's reply on plea against declaring June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has sought the central government’s response to a PIL challenging its recent notification declaring June 25, the day Emergency was imposed in the country in 1975, as Samvidan Hatya Diwas.

The petition filed by Jhansi-based advocate Santosh Singh Dohrey came before a bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar on Monday.

During the hearing, the counsel representing the Centre sought time to obtain instructions regarding the matter from the government. The court allowed his request and fixed the next hearing on July 31.

In the PIL, the petitioner sought quashing of the notification published in the Gazette of India on July 13 this year which declared June 25 as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’, claiming it violates the Constitution.

The gazette notification states that a proclamation of Emergency was made on June 25, 1975, following which “there was gross abuse of power by the then government and people of India were subjected to excesses and atrocities”.

“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,” it said.

The PIL plea argues that the notification by the central government directly violates the provision of the Constitution and hits the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

The PIL contended that the language in the impugned notification is insulting and offending to the Constitution 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.

It said that the proclamation of Emergency in 1975 was under the provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondents are wrong in declaring June 25th as “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.

The plea alleged that he issued the notification to “please” his political superiors and to secure his important position in the administration.

The PIL 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 argues that the notification violates Article 77 of the Constitution.