Delhi High Court dismisses PIL challenging Centre declaring June 25 as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'

A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said the Centre's notification was not in violation of the Constitution as it was not issued to challenge the issue of the proclamation of Emergency but against the excesses that followed.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a PIL challenging the Centre's decision to observe June 25, the day the Emergency was imposed in 1975, as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas'.

A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan rejected the petitioner's contention that the decision was not only in violation of the Constitution but also "insulting" as it used the word "hatya" (murder) with "Samvidhan" (Constitution), which is a "living document", and said it in no way showed any disrespect to the Constitution.

The court said the Centre's July 12 notification was not against the proclamation of Emergency but against the abuse of power, misuse of law and the excesses that followed, and was therefore not in violation of the Constitution or law.

Petitioner Samir Mailk's counsel contended that Emergency was declared in 1975 as per Article 352 of the Constitution of India and the decision to declare the day of the proclamation as 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas' was derogatory and contrary to the constitutional provisions.

It was argued that the Constitution was a "living document" which cannot die.

Observing 'Samvidhan Hatya Diwas' would also violate the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, the lawyer contended.

"The court finds that the notification does not challenge the issue of proclamation of Emergency.. and the Constitution but the abuse of power, misuse of provisions and the excesses. It is in that context that 'hatya' is used," the bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, said.

"It in no way undermines or disrespects the Constitution," added the court.

Noting that it was not inclined to accept the petitioner's case, the court said even the phrase "murder of democracy" was often used, and the petition was not worth consideration.

The petitioner, a lawyer himself, said in his plea that under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, showing disrespect to the Constitution was an offence and even the government cannot be permitted to use "offending language" in relation to the Constitution for their personal and political purpose.

The plea said the notification does not disclose under which law or regulation it was issued.

The notification, it said, is also not in compliance with Article 77 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that all executive actions of the government shall be taken in the name of the President.