Allahabad HC Seeks UOI's Reply On PIL Challenging Its Move To Observe June 25 As 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'

The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Union of India (UOI) on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the government's decision to observe June 25 as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas' every year.

The PIL, moved by Jhansi-based practising advocate Santosh Singh Dohrey through Advocate Braj Mohan Singh, seeks quashing of the Union Government's notification, published in the Gazette of India on July 13, declaring June 25 — the day that the Emergency was imposed in the country in 1975 — as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas'.

It may be noted that the gazette notification under challenge was issued/published on Friday (July 12), stating that a proclamation of Emergency was made on June 25, 1975, following which “there was gross abuse of power by the Government of the day and people of India were subjected to excesses and atrocities.”

The notification further added that the people of India have faith in the Constitution and the power of India's resilient democracy.

“Therefore, 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,” the notification said.

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

"...the language in the impugned notification is insulting and offending to the Constitution of India 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/ संविधान is an offence...Constitution is our National Honour as per the Act, 1971, and so using the word संविधान with हत्या, is an insult to the Constitution of India committed by the respondents," the PIL plea states.

The impugned gazette notification is attached in the tweet below:

The PIL plea adds that the proclamation of emergency in 1975 was under the provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the respondents are wrong in declaring a day of 25th June in the name of "संविधान हत्या दिवस" 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 of India.

However, the plea contends that he issued the notification to please his political superiors and to secure his important position in the administration by currying favour with the political leadership of the Union of India.

The PIL plea lastly 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 plea argues that the impugned notification violates Article 77 of the Constitution of India.

Hearing the matter on Monday, a bench of Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar issued notice to the Central Government and asked for its response in the matter.