IN Supreme Court Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed Debunks Rumour on Father's Note

Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, son of former President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, has publicly clarified a long-standing rumour regarding a private note his father allegedly wrote about the 1975 Emergency proclamation. Contrary to popular belief, Justice Ahmed asserts that his father never wrote such a note, and consequently, he could not have destroyed it. This revelation is significant for legal professionals, as it corrects a persistent historical narrative surrounding a pivotal moment in India's constitutional history. The clarification underscores the importance of accurate historical accounts, particularly concerning events that profoundly impacted constitutional law, fundamental rights, and the delicate balance of power within the Indian democratic framework.

The declaration of the National Emergency in India on June 25, 1975, remains one of the most contentious and scrutinised periods in the nation's constitutional history. At the heart of this pivotal event was the role of the then-President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who formally proclaimed the Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution. For decades, a particular narrative has circulated, suggesting that President Ahmed penned a private note detailing the circumstances of his decision, a note his son, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, was rumoured to have later destroyed.

In a recent interview, Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, a former judge of the Delhi High Court and Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, directly addressed and corrected this persistent rumour. He unequivocally stated that his father never wrote such a note, thereby debunking the story of its existence and subsequent destruction. This clarification is not merely a personal anecdote but holds significant implications for legal professionals and constitutional scholars, offering a refined understanding of the historical context surrounding the Emergency and the actions of key constitutional functionaries. This article will delve into the legal framework of the 1975 Emergency, analyse the impact of Justice Ahmed's clarification, and explore the enduring lessons for India's constitutional democracy.

The power to declare a National Emergency is enshrined in Part XVIII of the Constitution of India, specifically under Article 352. This provision allows the President to proclaim an emergency if satisfied that a grave threat exists to the security of India or any part thereof, whether by war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. On June 25, 1975, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, acting on the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, declared an Emergency citing 'internal disturbance' as the ground.

This proclamation effectively suspended fundamental rights, allowed the Union government to assume sweeping powers, and curtailed civil liberties for a period of 21 months, lasting until March 21, 1977. During this period, several constitutional amendments were enacted, including the 38th, 39th, and 42nd Amendments, which significantly altered the constitutional landscape. The 38th Amendment, 1975, made the President's satisfaction in declaring an Emergency immune from judicial review. The 39th Amendment, 1975, placed the election of the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of courts. These amendments, coupled with the suspension of fundamental rights, led to widespread criticism regarding the erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law.

Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed's recent statement directly refutes a long-held belief about a crucial piece of historical evidence concerning the 1975 Emergency. His assertion that his father, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, never wrote a private note on the circumstances of the proclamation challenges a narrative that has persisted in public discourse for nearly five decades. This correction is vital for legal and historical accuracy, as such a note, had it existed, would have offered an unparalleled insight into the President's personal perspective on an act that profoundly reshaped India's constitutional trajectory.

The legal ramifications of the 1975 Emergency were far-reaching, most notably highlighted by the Supreme Court's controversial decision in *Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla*, AIR 1976 SC 1207, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case. In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that during a proclamation of emergency under Article 352, the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, stood suspended. Justice H.R. Khanna's lone dissenting opinion, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty could not be suspended even during an emergency, remains a beacon of judicial courage and a powerful affirmation of natural rights.

The lessons from the Emergency led to significant constitutional reforms. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, introduced crucial safeguards to prevent the recurrence of such abuses of power. It replaced the vague term 'internal disturbance' with 'armed rebellion' as a ground for proclaiming an emergency, making it more difficult for the executive to invoke Article 352. Crucially, it mandated that a proclamation of emergency could only be issued by the President upon the 'written advice' of the Union Cabinet, ensuring collective responsibility and preventing a unilateral decision by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the 44th Amendment explicitly protected Articles 20 and 21 (protection in respect of conviction for offences and protection of life and personal liberty) from suspension during an emergency, thereby rectifying a major flaw exposed by the *ADM Jabalpur* judgment.

Justice Ahmed's clarification, while correcting a specific historical detail, implicitly reinforces the broader constitutional principle that the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. While President Ahmed signed the proclamation, the constitutional convention and subsequent amendments underscore that such a momentous decision is not, and should not be, a solitary act of the President. The evolution of Article 352, particularly the insertion of Article 352(3) by the 44th Amendment, requiring written Cabinet advice, reflects a conscious effort to strengthen democratic checks and balances against executive overreach.

Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed's forthright correction regarding his father's alleged note on the 1975 Emergency serves as a vital contribution to the historical record, dispelling a long-standing misconception. For legal practitioners, this highlights the ongoing importance of scrutinising historical narratives, particularly those that touch upon foundational constitutional events. The Emergency period remains a critical case study in Indian constitutional law, demonstrating the fragility of fundamental rights and the imperative for robust institutional safeguards against the abuse of executive power.

The legacy of the 1975 Emergency continues to inform contemporary debates on constitutionalism, judicial review, and the balance between state security and individual liberties. Legal professionals must remain vigilant in upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the protections afforded by the 44th Amendment. The experience of the Emergency underscores that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and the legal community plays a crucial role in ensuring that the constitutional lessons learned from that period are never forgotten, safeguarding India's democratic future.