PIL against ‘Samvidhan Hatya Diwas’:HC seeks Central govt’s response

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has requested a response from the central government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the government's notification, issued on July 13, 2024, which declared June 25 as ‘Samvidhan Hatya Diwas.’
This date marks the imposition of the national Emergency in India in 1975. The PIL, filed by Santosh Singh Dohrey, a practising advocate from Jhansi, was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar.The court has set the next hearing on July 31, 2024.
During the hearing on Monday, the Central government's counsel requested time to obtain instructions on the matter, which the court granted. The PIL seeks to quash the Centre’s notification, which was published in the Gazette of India on July 13. The notification stated that the proclamation of Emergency on June 25, 1975, led to ‘gross abuse of power by the then government of the day and people of India were subjected to excesses and atrocities.’
It further emphasized the people’s faith in the Constitution and the resilience of India's democracy. The government declared June 25 as ‘Samvidhan 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 the future,” the notification said.
The PIL argues that the notification directly violates the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. According to the Act, the Constitution is considered a national honour, and using the word ‘killing’ (hatya) in reference to the Constitution is an insult committed by the respondents. The PIL also points out that the proclamation of emergency in 1975 was made under the provisions of the Constitution, and therefore, declaring June 25 as ‘Samvidhan Hatya Diwas is incorrect, as the Constitution is a living document that cannot be destroyed.
Furthermore, the PIL questions the rationale behind G Parthasarathi, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, issuing the notification. As a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and an executive of India, Parthasarathi is bound by oath to follow the Constitution. The plea suggests that he issued the notification to please his political superiors and secure his position in the administration.
Lastly, the PIL contends that all executive actions must be expressed in the name of the President of India, as per Article 77 of the Constitution. However, the notification does not comply with this requirement, thus violating Article 77 and the rules made thereunder.