NEW DELHI: Arguments extending over 210 minutes before a Supreme Court vacation bench on June 23, 1975, challenging an 11-day-old verdict of Allahabad HC annulling then PM Indira Gandhi 's election from Rae Bareli, and Justice V R Krishna Iyer 's June 24 'conditional stay' to keep her afloat as PM, led to imposition of Emergency on June 25.
One of the greatest lawyers of India, Nani Palkhivala , and a team of 10 advocates had appeared for Indira before the high court, which on June 12 found her guilty of corrupt electoral practices, set aside her election, and disqualified her from holding elective office for six years. However, HC stayed operation of the order for 209 days to enable her to appeal in SC.
Presenting Indira's appeal before judge Justice Iyer on June 23, Palkhivala was allowed to argue for 90 minutes, the same as Raj Narain's counsel Shanti Bhushan to counter it, and then another 30 minutes to Palkhivala for rejoinder.
On June 24, Justice Iyer gave a long interim order and said Indira was entitled to participate in Lok Sabha proceedings as PM, but would not have the right to vote or draw remuneration as an MP till her petition was decided by the apex court. It said her powers as PM would remain unaffected.
Much later, Justice Iyer revealed it was Palkhivala's brilliance which persuaded him to grant stay. In Justice Iyer's own words, "Nani presented the case lucidly and luminously, pressing every point that deserved to be made but not haranguing or cringing... His courtesy to the court was winsome, his diction delectable, his precision perfect."
A day later, at 11pm, Indira went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to inform President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed that her govt had decided to impose a state of internal Emergency at once. After arguing the case, Palkhivala had left for Bombay.
After imposition of Emergency, many renowned lawyers requested Palkhivala to withdraw from representing Indira. Palkhivala agreed and rang up TOI to publish a long statement about returning the brief - Indira's case file. Risking the draconian censorship powers vested with the police, TOI agreed to publish a short news item stating Palkhivala had returned the PM's brief.
On June 27, 1975, Palkhivala wrote to Indira: "While I adhere to my views regarding the legal merits of the PM's appeal against HC's judgment on the election petition against her (filed by Raj Narain), the measures taken by the govt this morning are such that, consistent with my lifelong convictions and the values I cherish, I have requested the law minister (H R Gokhale) to convey to the PM my decision to withdraw as counsel from the appeal. Unfortunately, pre-censorship did not permit even this perfectly innocuous statement to be printed."
A year later, Indira's personal envoy Mohd Yunus took a dig at Palkhivala by comparing his action with that of a doctor who abandons a patient and questioned his professional ethics. Palkhivala was not the one to be perturbed by such insinuations.
One of the greatest lawyers of India, Nani Palkhivala , and a team of 10 advocates had appeared for Indira before the high court, which on June 12 found her guilty of corrupt electoral practices, set aside her election, and disqualified her from holding elective office for six years. However, HC stayed operation of the order for 209 days to enable her to appeal in SC.
Presenting Indira's appeal before judge Justice Iyer on June 23, Palkhivala was allowed to argue for 90 minutes, the same as Raj Narain's counsel Shanti Bhushan to counter it, and then another 30 minutes to Palkhivala for rejoinder.
On June 24, Justice Iyer gave a long interim order and said Indira was entitled to participate in Lok Sabha proceedings as PM, but would not have the right to vote or draw remuneration as an MP till her petition was decided by the apex court. It said her powers as PM would remain unaffected.
Much later, Justice Iyer revealed it was Palkhivala's brilliance which persuaded him to grant stay. In Justice Iyer's own words, "Nani presented the case lucidly and luminously, pressing every point that deserved to be made but not haranguing or cringing... His courtesy to the court was winsome, his diction delectable, his precision perfect."
A day later, at 11pm, Indira went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to inform President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed that her govt had decided to impose a state of internal Emergency at once. After arguing the case, Palkhivala had left for Bombay.
After imposition of Emergency, many renowned lawyers requested Palkhivala to withdraw from representing Indira. Palkhivala agreed and rang up TOI to publish a long statement about returning the brief - Indira's case file. Risking the draconian censorship powers vested with the police, TOI agreed to publish a short news item stating Palkhivala had returned the PM's brief.
On June 27, 1975, Palkhivala wrote to Indira: "While I adhere to my views regarding the legal merits of the PM's appeal against HC's judgment on the election petition against her (filed by Raj Narain), the measures taken by the govt this morning are such that, consistent with my lifelong convictions and the values I cherish, I have requested the law minister (H R Gokhale) to convey to the PM my decision to withdraw as counsel from the appeal. Unfortunately, pre-censorship did not permit even this perfectly innocuous statement to be printed."
A year later, Indira's personal envoy Mohd Yunus took a dig at Palkhivala by comparing his action with that of a doctor who abandons a patient and questioned his professional ethics. Palkhivala was not the one to be perturbed by such insinuations.
You may also like
Mum's chilling act as paramedics fight to save dying toddler she suffocated
Declare Bishnoi gang as terrorist organisation: Canadian mayor
Gurmeet Choudhary pays tribute to Bruce Lee through his martial arts journey
J&K gunfight: Four terrorists trapped in Udhampur's Bihali (Ld)
Over 1 lakh people applied to be part of Atmanirbhar Assam Abhiyan, says CM Sarma
