The article reflects on the declaration of the Emergency in India on June 25, 1975, by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which is described as a pivotal moment in Indian democratic history. It outlines the implications of the Emergency period, emphasizing the erosion of constitutional rights, suppression of dissent, and the overall impact on the working class.

Key points from the article include:

• Emergency Declaration: The Emergency in India lasted from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. It included the suspension of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

• Impact on Democracy: The article articulates how the Emergency represented a profound assault on democracy, justified in the name of national interest and the necessity to protect against internal and external threats. It highlights that such "fake nationalism" was employed as a tool for dictatorship.

• Working Class Suppression: The text outlines that the Emergency targeted the working classes, infringing upon their rights to unionize, protest, and strike. The chapter recalls the significant railway workers' strike of 1974 and the broader working-class struggles of the early 1970s.

• Support from Industry: It notes that many industrialists supported the Emergency, indicating a tacit alliance between the ruling government and capitalist interests.

• Personal Account of Activism: The writer shares a personal narrative of their experience organizing textile workers during this tumultuous time. Under extreme secrecy, workers planned strikes to oppose increased workloads and deteriorating conditions, which were met with police repression.

• Living Conditions and Displacement: The article reports on the inhumane displacement of poor families due to slum clearance initiatives and the implementation of sterilization campaigns, causing widespread fear and resentment among the urban poor.

• Lessons from the Emergency: It posits that the Emergency, although a period of oppression, also exemplified the resilience and unity of the people against an authoritarian regime. It emphasizes that the struggles faced during this time echo with current challenges to democratic norms.

• Modern Parallels: The writer draws parallels between the Emergency era and contemporary trends in India, warning of a continuing concentration of power and the potential erosion of constitutional safeguards, along with rising inequalities and community targeting.

• Call to Action: The article challenges readers to reflect on these historical lessons as they engage in current socio-political discourses, urging a recommitment to preserving democracy and constitutional integrity in India.

In conclusion, this recollection serves as a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the importance of vigilance against authoritarian tendencies, advocating a revival of commitment towards democratic principles as India commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Emergency.

In a significant development concerning infrastructure in Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India on June 24, 2023, sanctioned a total of 19 major projects, including roads and tunnel constructions, amounting to INR 10,637 crore. Out of these, four projects are highlighted for their strategic importance in connectivity and security.

Key Projects:

1. Pir Ki Gali Tunnel:

   • Length: 9 km
   • Cost: INR 3,830 crore
   • Purpose: To provide all-weather connectivity to the Kashmir Valley via the historic Mughal road between Poonch district and Shopian. This will keep the route accessible year-round, as it traditionally faces seasonal closures due to snow and avalanches.

2. Zaznar-Shopian Road:

   • Length: 28 km
   • Cost: INR 836 crore
   • Significance: This road will facilitate travel from Zaznar on the Mughal road to Shopian and is an integral part of the proposed highway linking the valley with Baramulla.

3. Sadhna Tunnel:

   • Length: 7 km
   • Cost: INR 3,330 crore
   • Connectivity: This tunnel will connect Kupwara to Karnah, areas adjacent to the Line of Control (LoC), ensuring year-round access and enhancing military logistics for border security.

4. Trehgam-Chamkote Road:

   • Length: 68 km
   • Cost: INR 966 crore
   • Importance: The improvement of this route enhances connections to Teetwal, reinforcing access to the border area.

Strategic Context:

• The development of these infrastructure projects aligns with India's broader aim of bolstering border connectivity amid ongoing security challenges in the region. The Centre's efforts coincide with an earlier announcement in November 2022 regarding a highway project that will link Rajouri and Poonch with the Kashmir Valley via the Mughal road, projected to cost INR 10,000 crore for a 300 km route.

• Currently, the Kashmir Valley relies significantly on NH44, which is considered vulnerable in crises, thus elevating the need for alternatives like the Mughal road, that regrettably remains unusable during winter months.

• The all-weather connectivity promised by the Pir Ki Gali and Sadhna tunnels will facilitate not just civilian transit but is also a pivotal enhancement for military operations in the strategically sensitive Kupwara district.

Implementation:

• The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) will undertake the construction of the Pir Ki Gali and Sadhna tunnels, succeeding the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) for project execution.

Conclusion:

These sanctioned projects mark a crucial advancement in the infrastructural landscape of Jammu and Kashmir, with significant implications for regional development, security, and accessibility, poised to facilitate travel and bolster the military preparedness along the sensitive borders of India.

Key Bullet Points:

• June 24, 2023: Central government approved 19 major projects worth INR 10,637 crore for Jammu and Kashmir.
• Four high-value projects include:
  • Pir Ki Gali Tunnel (9 km, INR 3,830 crore): Ensures all-weather connectivity on the Mughal road.
  • Sadhna Tunnel (7 km, INR 3,330 crore): Connects Kupwara to Karnah for military logistics.
  • Zaznar-Shopian Road (28 km, INR 836 crore): Enhances travel in south Kashmir.
  • Trehgam-Chamkote Road (68 km, INR 966 crore): Improved access to the LoC.
• These projects are critical for strategic and security reasons, aiming to develop border infrastructure.
• The Pir Ki Gali and Sadhna tunnels will maintain year-round accessibility in historically challenging conditions.
• Implementation transferred to the Border Roads Organisation for expedited construction.

The article discusses ongoing concerns regarding citizenship issues in India's border states, particularly involving individuals wrongly labeled as "foreigners." The judiciary has intervened in certain cases to provide provisional relief to impacted individuals facing deportation or harassment.

• Supreme Court Ruling: On June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of India temporarily halted the deportation of Jaynab Bibi, who was classified as a “foreigner” despite her family's long-standing residency in Assam. The court mandated that the Union government refrain from taking coercive measures against her until the next hearing scheduled for August.

• Recourse for Rakshanda Rashid: The High Court in Jammu and Kashmir ordered the repatriation of Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani national who had lived in India for 38 years. She was deported post a terrorist attack in Pahalgam and had been in India on a long-term visa. Despite applying for citizenship in 1996, her request remains unresolved.

• Judicial Emphasis on Human Rights: In her case, the High Court judge emphasized the paramount nature of human rights and the urgent need for judicial intervention in specific situations without delving into the exhaustive merits of the case.

• Legal Precedents: The article references a pivotal ruling from 2024, Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam, where the Supreme Court highlighted that mere suspicion is insufficient as a basis for labeling individuals as foreigners without legal and substantial evidence.

• Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019: The discussion also touches upon the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which allows citizenship to certain non-Muslim communities from neighboring countries citing religious persecution. It has been criticized for its narrow and arbitrary definition of what constitutes such persecution.

• Political and Social Context: The article conveys a broader social concern regarding the atmosphere of fear and anxiety experienced by marginalized and sometimes undocumented communities, exacerbated by the rhetoric from certain political leaders, particularly from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

• Human Rights Obligations: It concludes by asserting that governments must adhere to international human rights standards as outlined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reinforcing their obligation to uphold the dignity and human rights of all individuals, without judicial prompting.

Overall, this situation encapsulates significant legal, social, and human rights dimensions surrounding citizenship and the treatments of individuals in border areas of India, reflecting ongoing tensions and challenges faced by various communities.

Key Points:

• Supreme Court stayed deportation of Jaynab Bibi on June 24, 2025.
• Rakshanda Rashid's case highlights long delays in citizenship processes; she lived in India for 38 years.
• High Court emphasized human rights necessity for immediate judicial response.
• Supreme Court's ruling in 2024 underscores the need for strong evidence in citizenship cases.
• Citizenship (Amendment) Act criticized for its narrow interpretation of religious persecution.
• Increasing anxiety for marginalized communities fueled by political rhetoric.
• Governments urged to adhere to the United Nations human rights standards.

Summary of the Article

Bihar, known for its high levels of out-migration, is preparing for the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The article discusses the challenge of disenfranchisement faced by a substantial portion of the state's population, particularly migrants who will be unable to exercise their voting rights.

Election Context and Voter Turnout

• In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Bihar recorded a voter turnout of 56%, lower than the national average of 66%.
• Over half of the households in Bihar experience migration, contributing to lower voter participation as many migrants are unable to return home to vote.

Migration Statistics

• As of 2021, India's overall migration rate stands at 28.9%, with a significant number migrating for marriage.
• Approximately 10% of migrants in India migrate for work, with states like Bihar having higher proportions.

Challenges Faced by Migrants

• There is an increasing trend of migrants moving from poorer to richer areas in search of employment, leading to a growing number of disenfranchised voters.
• Current efforts to enable voting for migrants have not resulted in a single effective mechanism.

Proposals for Enabling Voting

• Intra-State Migrants:

  • These make up about 85% of all migrants and could vote from their original residence with support such as enforcing a statutory holiday on polling day to allow for travel, and scheduling special bus services.

• Inter-State Migrants:

  • This group constitutes a vulnerable population that requires distinct voting mechanisms. Three proposals are put forward:
    1. Remote Electronic Voting Machines (RVMs):
       • Pilot project showcased by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2023.
       • Each RVM can cater to up to 72 constituencies; however, political objections arose regarding identification and logistical challenges.
    2. Postal Ballots:
       • Similar to the system used for armed forces, this approach could facilitate voting for many migrants.
       • Administrative challenges would involve advance registration of migrants to ensure timely issuance of postal ballots.
    3. Switching Voting Constituencies:
       • A long-term option for migrants who can demonstrate residence in a constituency for at least six months, allowing them to engage in local politics.

• Women Migrants:

  • Considering the significant number of women who migrate for marriage, targeted voter enrollment drives can be implemented to register women at their new places of residence.

Policy Recommendations

• The ECI's ongoing efforts to facilitate voting for migrants require thorough consultation and refinement to enhance effectiveness.
• A multi-faceted approach utilizing all proposed mechanisms is suggested to promote the voter rights of both inter-State and intra-State migrants, thereby including a more substantial demographic in the electoral process.

Conclusion Enabling voting for migrants presents a complex and multifaceted challenge, necessitating innovative solutions and a holistic approach to ensure the democratic right of a significant portion of Bihar's population is safeguarded.

Key Points:

• Bihar's 2024 Lok Sabha election faces a challenged voter turnout of 56%, significantly lower than the national average.
• Over half of Bihar's households are affected by migration, leading to disenfranchisement of many voters.
• As of 2021, India's migration rate is 28.9%, with 10% migrating for work.
• Strategies suggested to enhance migrant voting rights include RVMs, postal ballots, and switching voting constituencies.
• The need for government support for intra-state migrants and targeted enrollment for women migrants is highlighted.
• Comprehensive mechanisms are needed to effectively include both intra-state and inter-state migrants in the electoral process.

On June 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the practice of investigating agencies summoning lawyers concerning the professional advice they provide to their clients. The court emphasized that this practice threatens the autonomy of the legal profession and undermines the administration of justice. Here are the critical points from the ruling and the surrounding context:

• Judicial Concern: A bench led by Justice K.V. Viswanathan expressed serious concerns about the implications of allowing investigating agencies or police to directly summon defense counsel. The court stated that such actions could hinder the ability of lawyers to carry out their duties fearlessly, thereby impacting the integrity of the judicial process.

• Framed Questions: The court posed two pivotal questions for consideration:

  1. Can investigative agencies summon and interrogate lawyers regarding the professional counsel they provide to their clients?
  2. Should there be judicial oversight when agencies wish to issue summons to lawyers who may have roles extending beyond mere representation?

• Referral to Chief Justice: The matter has been referred to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai for guidance. The court has also sought input from the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and prominent figures in the legal community, including leaders from the Bar Council of India.

• Statutory Protections for Lawyers: The bench reiterated that lawyers act as officers of the court and that they are entitled to certain rights and protections. The integrity of legal practice is underscored by statutory provisions ensuring that lawyers can perform their roles without intimidation.

• Impact of Specific Case: The discussion was partly triggered by a case involving a Gujarat-based lawyer who was summoned by police after securing bail for his client in a loan dispute. The High Court had intervened and stayed the summons issued against the advocate.

• Broader Implications: The court pointed out that this situation is not limited to one individual lawyer but is a broader issue concerning the protection of the legal system. It underscored that such summons are "prima facie untenable" and can compromise the legal framework.

• Recent Summons Controversy: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had previously issued summons to two esteemed Senior Advocates, Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, regarding their legal representation in a case, although the ED eventually withdrew these summons. This incident sparked significant distress within the legal fraternity, prompting the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to seek the Chief Justice's intervention.

• Conclusion: The Supreme Court's observations highlight a critical juncture in maintaining the autonomy of the legal profession against external pressures from investigating authorities. The court's commitment to safeguarding legal counsel's role is fundamental to the integrity of the judicial system.

This decision is significant in asserting the independence of the legal profession and ensuring that legal representation remains unencumbered by unwarranted governmental interference or intimidation. The ongoing dialogue may influence future regulations and practices within the legal framework of India.

On June 26, 2025, social and political activists gathered in Kochi to reflect on their experiences during the Emergency in India, which lasted from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. This period is marked by widespread censorship of press, detention without trial, and the suppression of political dissent under the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The gathering took place at the residence of veteran trade union leader K.N. Ravindranath, attended by notable political prisoners including Thampan Thomas, M.K. Kannan, M.T. Kurian, K.A. Ali Akbar, K.P. Job, and John Joseph.

During the meeting, there was a reading of a message from K.M. Sudhakaran, which would have further contributed to the reflections on this critical period in Indian history. The activists paid tribute to their fellow contemporaries M.M. Lawrence and M.K. Premnath, acknowledging their significant contributions during the Emergency.

Key Points:

• Event Date: June 26, 2025, commemorating the Emergency.
• Location: Kochi, India.
• Significant Historical Context: The Emergency lasted from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, marked by civil liberties suppression.
• Notable Attendees: Activists included Thampan Thomas, M.K. Kannan, M.T. Kurian, K.A. Ali Akbar, K.P. Job, and John Joseph.
• Tributes Paid: Activists honored M.M. Lawrence and M.K. Premnath for their contributions during the Emergency.
• Message from K.M. Sudhakaran: A read-out message indicating the continuing relevance of discussions on the Emergency.

This meeting serves to remind the public of the harsh realities during the Emergency and reflects on the resilience of the activists who stood against the authoritarian regime. It also highlights the importance of remembering and learning from past injustices to safeguard democracy in contemporary India.

Summary: Commemoration of the Emergency Declaration in India

On June 25, 2023, India observed the anniversary of the Emergency declared in 1975 under then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government. This event is marked as a pivotal moment when constitutional democracy was subverted, leading to significant repression of civil liberties and political dissent.

• Historical Context: The Emergency was imposed from 1975 to 1977, during which the government suspended fundamental rights, curtailed freedoms, and imprisoned opposition leaders. It serves as a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the need for vigilance against authoritarianism.

• Opposition and Resilience: Commemoration includes honoring politicians who resisted the Emergency by enduring imprisonment and those who remain dissenters today. This remembrance highlights the importance of a robust opposition, including political entities, citizens, and institutions that uphold democratic values.

• Judicial and Institutional Challenges: The Emergency undermined institutional checks, accountability, and the right to oppose. A recent court ruling, which overruled an Emergency-era judgment permitting unlawful detention, acknowledges the lasting impact of that period but also indicates that a broader reckoning is necessary.

• Legacy and Ongoing Struggles: Fifty years later, some ideologies originating during the Emergency—such as the vilification of dissenters, over-reliance on preventive detention, and attacks on judicial independence—have resurfaced. This highlights ongoing threats to democratic practices and an adversarial public discourse fueled by fear and misinformation.

• Democratic Strengths: Despite these challenges, democracy in India has evolved; the judiciary has regained its stature, civil society is more dynamic, and regional parties are resilient. Technology and social movements have empowered marginalized communities and fostered a pluralistic dialogue, though they also have contributed to divisive narratives.

• Call for Humility and Awareness: Observers emphasize the need for humility and continuous efforts to uphold and strengthen democratic governance. The commemoration serves as a reminder not to forget the lessons of the past, ensuring that the mistakes of the Emergency are not repeated.

• Conclusion: While the Emergency has ended, the work of safeguarding democracy and protecting civil liberties is ongoing. Continuous vigilance is essential to prevent a recurrence of such authoritarian measures, thus preserving the integrity of India's democratic framework.

Key Points:

• June 25 marks the anniversary of the Emergency (1975-1977).
• Celebrates dissent and opposition, including political prisoners.
• Highlights the degradation of democratic processes during the Emergency.
• Recent judicial verdicts indicate ongoing legislative and judicial reckoning.
• Certain undemocratic ideologies from the past reemerge, posing a threat.
• India’s democracy shows resilience through an active civil society and judiciary.
• Encourages a reflective approach to prevent history from repeating itself.

An incident of caste-based violence in Odisha's Ganjam district has prompted significant political and social outrage, leading to the formation of a fact-finding team by the Odisha Congress. The team, headed by Rama Chandra Kadam, aims to investigate the brutal treatment of two Dalit men, Babula Naik and Bulu Naik.

Summary of Events:

• Incident Details: On June 22, 2025, Babula Naik and Bulu Naik were taking three cows from Singipur village to a marriage ceremony when they were intercepted by a group of local youths, reportedly cow vigilantes, in Jahada village under Dharakote police limits.
• Atrocities Committed: The men were allegedly extorted for ₹30,000; when they couldn't pay, they suffered severe humiliation, including having their heads shaved, being made to eat grass, and forced to drink wastewater.
• Police Response: Ganjam Superintendent of Police, Suvendu Kumar Patra, confirmed that nine individuals were arrested, including a minor, while three others remain at large. The accused have been identified, with eight produced in local court and one minor presented to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Political Reactions:

• Congress Leaders Speak Out:
  • Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, criticized the frequent instances of such violence in BJP-ruled states, arguing that they undermine the constitutional values of equality, justice, and humanity.
  • Priyanka Gandhi Vadra condemned the incident as an "inhuman act" that disgracefully targets the dignity of Dalits, linking it to the broader theme of increasing violence against marginalized communities in certain political jurisdictions.
• Fact-Finding Mission: Rama Chandra Kadam's team is set to visit the victims to collect more information, highlighting the seriousness of violence against Dalits and the need for accountability regarding such societal issues.

Legal and Social Implications:

• Constitutional Values: The incident raises concerns about the upholding of the principles laid out by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as enshrined in the Constitution, focusing on justice and equality, particularly for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Public Outcry: The publication of video clips and photographs of the assault on social media has sparked widespread condemnation and calls for action from various social and political leaders.

Key Takeaways:

• Emerging Trends: This incident exemplifies a worrying trend of increased violence against Dalits in India, especially in certain states, as highlighted by the political discourse surrounding the incident.
• Justice and Accountability: The incidents of caste-based violence face scrutiny, raising questions about systemic failures to protect vulnerable communities.
• Legal Actions: Monitoring of court proceedings and the fate of the remaining absconding accused will be essential in framing the outcome of this significant social issue.

Important Points:

• Formation of a five-member fact-finding team by Odisha Congress.
• The incident occurred on June 22, 2025, involving serious human rights violations against Dalit men.
• Allegations include extortion and severe humiliation inflicted by cow vigilantes.
• Nine arrests have been made; notable responses from national Congress leaders expressing condemnation.
• Calls for accountability highlight ongoing issues regarding Dalit rights and constitutional violations.

The article provides a critical analysis of the Emergency period in India, declared on June 25, 1975, under Article 352 of the Constitution, which permits the declaration of an Emergency on grounds of "internal disturbance." The Emergency is associated with significant political and legal implications that marked a decline in democratic principles and constitutional integrity.

Summary:

• Legal Framework of the Emergency:

  • The Emergency was proclaimed under Article 352 allowing the government to declare such a state based on internal disturbances.
  • Indira Gandhi continued as Prime Minister despite the Allahabad High Court's disbarment ruling on June 12, 1975, a judgment that was temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court on June 24, 1975.
  • The use of Rule 12 from the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 allowed the Prime Minister to bypass Cabinet approval for declaring the Emergency, informing the Cabinet only after the fact.

• Erosion of Democratic Norms:

  • The imposition of the Emergency is characterized as a dark period for democracy due to illegitimate actions against political dissent.
  • Over 111,000 individuals were detained, including 13,000 from opposition parties, using the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) of 1971 which permitted indefinite detention without grounds.

• Amendments and Judicial Manipulation:

  • The 39th Amendment to the Constitution in August 1975 placed MISA in the Ninth Schedule, making it immune from judicial review, and protected the election of key offices from being challenged in court.
  • Judicial independence was compromised through the appointment of judges aligned with government interests, exemplified by the appointment of Justice M. H. Beg over senior Justice H. R. Khanna, known for dissenting against civil liberties suspension.

• Selective Law Application and Executive Overreach:

  • There was a selective application of laws that favored the government, with arrested individuals lacking fundamental rights.
  • The slogan “Indira is India and India is Indira” reflected the merging of state and individual identity, indicative of democratic backsliding.

• Lessons and Observations:

  • The Emergency serves as a crucial example illustrating how democracies can erode through legal frameworks, manipulation of laws, subversion of judicial power, and the fusion of political and state identities.
  • The article draws parallels between India’s approach to democratic design post-independence and historical instances of authoritarianism, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional designs to ensure democracy.
  • The commentary from Tom Ginsburg and political scientists highlights how elected leaders can gradually undermine democratic systems while stressing the importance of an independent judiciary, vibrant civil society, and a robust opposition.

Key Points:

• Emergency Declaration Date: June 25, 1975, under Article 352.
• Supreme Court Ruling: Allowed Indira Gandhi to remain Prime Minister despite HC disbarment.
• Preventive Detentions: Over 111,000 detainees, primarily under MISA.
• 39th Amendment: Shielded MISA and key election processes from judicial review.
• Judicial Manipulation: Appointment of judges based on loyalty to government over seniority.
• Fused Identity Signal: The slogan "Indira is India" indicative of democratic decline.
• Lessons from Emergency: Emphasizes the need for constitutional adherence and protection of democratic institutions to prevent authoritarianism.

The article encapsulates the various aspects of the Emergency in India, shedding light on its legal, political, and societal implications while drawing critical lessons for the preservation of democracy in the future.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the importance of preserving the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior, which also houses the grave of the celebrated musician Tansen, a notable figure in the court of Mughal Emperor Akbar. The court dismissed an appeal that sought permission for conducting religious and cultural activities at the site, emphasizing the necessity to protect monuments of national significance as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

Key details of the court's ruling and the monument's background include:

• Date of Ruling: The judgment was rendered on June 16.
• Legal Framework: The monument was designated as a protected site in 1962 under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
• Court Statement: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh from the Madhya Pradesh High Court articulated that the monument "deserves to be protected with utmost care and caution," and that no activities that could jeopardize its originality and sanctity would be allowed.
• Historical Context: Tansen, a luminary in Indian classical music known for his Dhrupad compositions, is interred alongside Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus, a 16th-century Sufi saint. The court noted the significance of both figures in the historical and cultural tapestry of India.
• Contention by Appellant: The appellant, Syed Sabla Hasan, claimed to be the spiritual caretaker (Sajjada Nashin) and legal heir of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus. He argued that traditional cultural practices had been part of the site's activities for over 400 years and characterized the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) cessation of these activities as arbitrary and illegal.
• Court's Emphasis: The court stressed the responsibility of the ASI and district administration in safeguarding the monument, advocating that cultural heritage should be preserved with care to prevent any loss to the nation’s historical identity.

This ruling underscores the judicial commitment to protecting cultural heritage and ensuring that historical monuments are maintained for their educational and cultural value, in alignment with constitutional mandates reflecting public interest over personal or vested interests.

Bullet Points:

• Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal for religious activities at the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus.
• Monument declared protected in 1962 under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
• Ruling affirmed on June 16 by Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh.
• Emphasis on the need for utmost care in protecting monuments of national importance.
• Tansen, a notable musician from the Mughal era, is buried alongside Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus.
• Appellant claimed rights as Sajjada Nashin and sought to continue long-standing cultural practices at the site.
• Court stressed the duty of the ASI and district administration to protect the monument’s integrity and cultural significance.

The article discusses the imposition of the Emergency in India from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, under the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, marking a significant and troubling period in India’s democratic history.

Summary of Key Points:

• The Emergency is acknowledged as one of the most significant threats to Indian democracy since independence, demonstrating a shift towards authoritarianism.

• Crisis Context:

  • Indira Gandhi faced mounting protests from the public, notably driven by the Nav Nirman movement in Gujarat and the Bihar Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti, advocating for "total revolution" against corruption.
  • Public dissent grew with Jayaprakash Narayan's leadership and the call for non-violent change among students and workers.

• Judicial Trigger:

  • On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi's election due to electoral malpractices. This was a landmark judgment by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha, disqualifying her from the Lok Sabha and barring her from future elections for six years.

• Emergency Declaration:

  • On June 25, 1975, Indira Gandhi proclaimed a National Emergency citing "internal disturbance," despite Article 352 requiring conditions such as war or armed rebellion for such a declaration.
  • The Emergency led to suspension of fundamental rights, including free speech, press freedom, and habeas corpus. Censorship became pervasive, with dissenting media outlets shut down.

• Detention of Opposition:

  • Notable opposition leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan and others were detained as the government enforced strict preventive detention laws, silencing opposition.

• Legislative Changes:

  • The government employed the 42nd Amendment to extend the Lok Sabha tenure from five to six years, which was later reverted by the 44th Amendment post-Emergency.

• Public Resistance:

  • Organic protests emerged against the Emergency, marking a significant era of resistance from citizens, students, and opposition parties despite severe government crackdowns.
  • Some media, including The Indian Express and The Statesman, maintained their editorial independence amidst censorship.

• Post-Emergency Scenario:

  • The 1977 general elections became a pivotal moment, reflecting the people's will as the Janata Party emerged victorious, thereby reinstating democratic processes after 21 months of authoritarian rule.
  • This electoral outcome underlined the power of democratic participation in combating a dictatorial regime.

• Lessons for Future Generations:

  • The account illustrates the importance of safeguarding civil liberties, maintaining checks and balances in governance, and ensuring vigilance against threats to democracy and judicial independence.
  • It emphasizes that the judiciary and media roles are essential bulwarks of democracy, reinforcing the idea that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Key Factual Data:

• Emergency Timeline: June 25, 1975 - March 21, 1977.
• Constitutional Articles:
  • Article 352 (National Emergency).
  • 42nd Amendment (extension of Lok Sabha and state assembly terms).
  • 44th Amendment (reversion of Lok Sabha terms).

Conclusion:

The historical recollection of the Emergency serves as a critical reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of active citizen engagement and media freedom to sustain democracy in India. The article calls for educating younger generations about this impactful period to empower them to cherish and protect their democratic rights.

On June 12, 2025, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of India summoned senior advocate Arvind Datar concerning advice he provided to Care Health Insurance regarding Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) involving a former chairperson of Religare. This action sparked significant backlash from the legal community, prompting the ED to retract the summons shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the ED issued a similar summons to another senior advocate, Pratap Venugopal, intensifying concerns about the professional autonomy and privilege of legal counsel in India.

Key Highlights:

• Legal Framework: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, safeguards communications between legal advisers and clients. Section 132 of the BSA reinforces that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose confidential client communications without the client's consent.

• Concerns About Professional Autonomy: The summons raised fundamental questions regarding whether lawyers can be interrogated merely for providing legal advice without any indications of collusion or complicity. The legal fraternity argued that the right to counsel is compromised if lawyers can be summoned for giving advice, which is essential for unimpeded legal representation.

• Precedents and Legal Protections: Courts have historically upheld the need for advocates to be shielded from harassment during the course of their professional duties. Wrong legal advice does not equate to wrongdoing. Investigative agencies must operate within legal boundaries and respect the sanctity of attorney-client privilege, particularly under coercive statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

• Implications of Summons on Legal Practice: The recent actions by the ED could have chilling effects on legal counsel. Lawyers may become hesitant to offer candid legal advice, especially in sensitive matters, leading to a culture of self-censorship and reluctance to accept clients whose conduct might later be scrutinized.

• Impact on Rule of Law: The summoning of advocates for professional advice undermines the independence of the legal profession, a cornerstone of constitutional democracy. It poses a threat not only to individual lawyers but also to the institutional balance between the legal profession and executive power.

• Reactions from Legal Fraternity: Bar associations perceived the summons as indicative of a broader threat to the integrity and credibility of the legal profession. Concerns were raised that if such practices continue, the legal community may face increased pressures and challenges regarding their independence.

• Call for Judicial Clarification: The legal community advocates for a declaratory ruling affirming that lawyers cannot be summoned based solely on professional advice without evidence of unlawful involvement. Such a ruling would reinforce the principle that legal counsel is protected expression, separating the adviser from potential complicity.

• Institutional Measures and Legislative Action: Bar Councils are urged to assert their privileges and engage with investigative agencies to prevent future occurrences of such summonses. Furthermore, there is a call for Parliament to reinforce advocate-client privilege to uphold the integrity of legal counsel under scrutiny.

• Conclusion: The ED's actions, while retracted, signify a troubling trend towards encroachment upon the legal profession's autonomy. The legal community must delineate the boundaries between legal advice and investigative scrutiny to preserve the foundational principles of justice and the rule of law.

The episode serves as a critical moment for introspection within the legal community, emphasizing the need for clarity and reinforcement of the privileges that protect advocates in their professional capacities.

Important Points:

• ED Summons: Issued to advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal regarding legal advice.
• Legal Protections: BSA 2023, specifically Section 132, protects lawyer-client privilege.
• Concerns Raised: Professional autonomy of lawyers is at stake; summoning without evidence undermines legal advice.
• Judicial Precedents: Courts historically support the protection of advocates from harassment.
• Impact on Legal Practice: Risk of self-censorship and chilling effects on candid legal advice.
• Responses: Legal community advocates for judicial clarification on advocate protection.
• Legislative Recommendations: Calls for statutory reinforcement of advocate-client privilege to safeguard legal counsel’s role.

This article discusses the rising trend of a new form of despotism in the 21st century, highlighting its characteristics and global implications in the context of contemporary geopolitics.

Key Points:

• Definition of Despotism: The article posits that despotism, a term often overshadowed by "autocracy" and "authoritarianism," is critical for understanding new threats to democracy across the globe. It conveys this form of rule as a pseudo-democratic government where the leaders adeptly manipulate public sentiment and maintain control without the direct application of sheer force.

• Global Context: Despots and authoritarian leaders have emerged in various countries, including Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, and Vietnam. Additionally, democratically flawed leaderships are noted in Hungary, Mexico, Israel, and the United States under Donald Trump.

• Mechanisms of Control: Despotism thrives on manipulated consent from citizens, facilitating a form of voluntary servitude. Rulers utilize government handouts, patronage, deception, and controlled media narratives to foster allegiance. This results in a hierarchical system of power that appears democratic but is fundamentally autocratic.

• Contagion of Despotism: The spirit of despotism is described as contagious, where like-minded despots collaborate and empower each other, threatening the fabric of democratic governance. The article illustrates this phenomenon through a detailed account of a visit by Donald Trump to West Asia in May 2025, highlighting his reception by leaders in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

  • Key Highlights from Trump's Visit:
    • Lavish ceremonies with military honors and significant hospitality.
    • Signed trillion-dollar business and defense contracts.
    • Initiatives for a joint nuclear energy program and advanced AI chip imports.
    • Bestowing of luxury gifts, including a jet from Qatar, reinforcing the bonds among despots.

• Impact on Democracy: The rise of despotism raises fundamental questions concerning the value and role of democracy. True democracy transcends mere electoral processes; it embodies a system that guards against unchecked power and promotes the welfare of citizens.

• Historical Reference: The article draws parallels to India's Emergency period (1975-1977) as a time when citizens resisted authoritarian rule, underscoring the potential functions of democracy as a safeguard against harm and an essential mechanism for accountability.

• Conclusion: The author emphasizes that democracy's essence is to prevent damage caused by arbitrary power, ensuring that governmental authority remains transparent and accountable. It serves as a bulwark against the coercive tendencies of despotic rule, recognizing the fundamental belief that no individual or group should monopolize power permanently.

In summary, this exposition contemplates the challenges of preserving democratic integrity in a world increasingly swayed by the tactics of modern despotism, reiterating the necessity of vigilance against the encroachment of authoritarian politics on democratic ideals.

The news article reflects on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from 1975 to 1977. The period is characterized by significant political repression, a curtailing of civil liberties, and a top-down assault on democratic institutions.

Key Points:

• Historical Context:

  • The Emergency was proclaimed on June 25, 1975, after the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi's election, citing electoral malpractice.
  • The period lasted for 21 months, marked by widespread censorship, political detentions, and the suppression of dissent.

• Political Narratives:

  • The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) frequently highlights the Emergency to pillory the Congress Party and Its historical leaders, especially Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi.
  • In contrast, the Congress Party tends to downplay or ignore this trauma in its political discourse.

• Effects and Public Sentiment:

  • The article suggests that fear was a pervasive weapon during the Emergency, with repression spread across the political landscape, leading to a stifling of opposition voices.
  • Many prominent opposition leaders were jailed during this period, and grassroots sentiments turned against the government largely due to unpopular measures like Sanjay Gandhi's forced sterilization campaign.

• Crisis of Governance:

  • Indira Gandhi's tactics, which included the manipulation of electoral processes and promoting a “committed judiciary,” went against established democratic norms.
  • Advisors such as P N Haksar provided counsel that eventually fell out of favor as Sanjay Gandhi began to dominate guidance of policy matters.

• Consequences of Emergency:

  • Despite strict measures to maintain her position, Indira Gandhi faced backlash following her resignation and subsequent political setbacks.
  • In the 1977 General Elections, there was a significant parliamentary shift away from the ruling party, as the populace rejected the Emergency's associated hardships.

• Electoral Dynamics:

  • Analysis of voter behavior indicated that while anti-Emergency sentiments were strong, the real catalyst for change lay in specific policies such as the coerced sterilization that affected a significant portion of the economy’s underprivileged classes.
  • Interestingly, relative literacy and socio-economic conditions influenced voting patterns, with regions less affected by these policies still showing support for the Congress party.

• Conclusions on Democratic Practices:

  • The article posits that the resilience of constitutional norms is often dependent on broader socio-economic considerations of the populace.
  • Narendra Modi’s BJP keeps the memory alive as a political tool, cultivating a sense of historical narrative that showcases the instability and risks associated with collective governance.

The complex interplay of these factors has shaped the contemporary discourse around democracy in India. The elements discussed point to ongoing challenges related to governance and citizens' engagement in political processes, highlighting the lessons learned from the Emergency.

Overall, the article serves as a critical reminder of the historical implications of the Emergency on Indian democracy and the significance of remembering past events in shaping current political landscapes.

The news article recounts significant events during the Emergency period in India, particularly focusing on M.K. Stalin, currently the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, and his experiences as a political prisoner. The Emergency, declared on June 25, 1975, lasted until March 21, 1977, and resulted in widespread curtailments of civil liberties and political persecution.

Summary of Key Events and Facts:

• Dismissal of DMK Government:

  • The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government, led by M. Karunanidhi, was dismissed on January 31, 1976.

• Arrest and Imprisonment of M.K. Stalin:

  • Following his father's government dismissal, M.K. Stalin was arrested and confined in Madras Central Prison after returning from Maduranthakam on February 1, 1976.
  • He remained in custody until the Emergency was lifted on March 21, 1977.

• Testimony Before the Justice M.M. Ismail Commission:

  • Stalin testified on July 20, 1977, describing brutal treatment during imprisonment, including being beaten, slapped, and kicked.
  • He was initially placed in a difficult jail environment, where he asserted overcrowding and poor food quality were prevalent.

• Conditions in Prison:

  • Stalin was eventually allowed to appear for his B.A. examinations, indicating some degree of leniency by the Jail Superintendent, K. Vidyasagar, who was otherwise noted for his harsh treatment.
  • Other detainees faced pressure to resign from the DMK, with some mentioning fear of repercussions leading to their decisions.

• Defense from Jail Staff:

  • The counsel representing prison staff denied allegations of mistreatment and claimed that any rough handling was politicized.
  • Vidyasagar suggested the accusations of abuse were exaggerated by DMK sympathizers aiming to influence public perception and electoral outcomes.

• Political Implications and Repercussions:

  • Allegations surfaced about the motivations behind the resignations of other detainees from the DMK, indicating instances of coercion and intimidation by jail authorities suggesting transfers to harsher prisons if compliance was not shown.

Important Points:

• The events highlight the political repression experienced during India's Emergency, affecting numerous political figures.
• The testimony by M.K. Stalin and other detainees provides insight into the specific human rights abuses that took place.
• The use of political prisoners as instruments in a broader strategy to consolidate power during the Emergency is noted.
• The ongoing inquiries into these abuses, reflected in testimonies before the Justice M.M. Ismail Commission, underscore the lasting impact of the Emergency on the Indian political landscape.

Conclusions:

The article presents an informative account of a crucial period in Indian political history, specifically relating to the DMK and the personal narrative of a key political leader, M.K. Stalin. The testimonies reveal the harsh realities of political oppression, affecting not only individuals but also shaping the trajectory of political parties in India.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India has initiated suo motu cognizance regarding the reported social ostracism faced by a Scheduled Tribe woman's family in Rayagada district, Odisha, following her marriage to a man from a Scheduled Caste. This development highlights serious concerns regarding human rights violations against marginalized communities.

Key Details:

• Incident Overview: The issue emerged when a woman from a Scheduled Tribe married a man from a Scheduled Caste. Following this inter-caste marriage, the villagers imposed a social boycott on her family's members.

• Purification Ritual: The villagers demanded a purification ritual as a prerequisite for the woman's family to be readmitted into the community. This ritual included the tonsuring (shaving) of the heads of the male members of her family.

• Threat of Boycott: The family faced threats of an indefinite boycott should they refuse to comply with the villagers' demands, indicating the extreme pressure and social stigma attached to the marriage.

• NHRC Action: On the basis of a media report published on June 21, 2025, the NHRC has issued a notice to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Odisha, asking for a detailed report concerning the incident within a stipulated timeline of two weeks.

• Human Rights Concerns: The NHRC highlighted that the situation, if validated, raises critical human rights issues, emphasizing the need for state intervention and protection of the rights of the affected individuals.

Implications and Context:

• Social Dynamics: This case reveals the persistent caste-based discrimination and deeply entrenched social norms that continue to permeate various parts of India, reflecting societal attitudes towards inter-caste marriages.

• Legal Framework: The incident underlines the importance of legal protections against discrimination as enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 15 and 17, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and abolish "untouchability," respectively.

• Government Response: The NHRC's swift action underscores the role of national human rights institutions in addressing grievances related to social justice and the need for systematic reporting and policy-making to counter social evils.

• Following Up: The NHRC's demand for a detailed report emphasizes the necessity for accountability within state machinery and services to effectively address such incidents that violate human rights.

Conclusion: The situation requires earnest attention from both state and national governments to avert such discriminatory practices and ensure the protection of human rights for all citizens, especially those belonging to marginalized communities. The outcome of the NHRC's inquiry will be closely watched as it could lead to necessary systemic reforms to curb caste-based discrimination.

Important Points:

• NHRC takes cognizance of social boycott against Scheduled Tribe woman’s family in Odisha.
• Marriage to a man from Scheduled Caste triggered the boycott by local villagers.
• Purification ritual demanded involved tonsuring the heads of 40 family members.
• NHRC has requested a report from the Odisha Chief Secretary within two weeks.
• The incident raises significant human rights concerns.
• Highlights the ongoing issue of caste-based discrimination in India’s society.
• Reinforces the relevance of constitutional protections against discrimination.

The Union Cabinet of India, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has adopted a resolution to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Emergency Proclamation, which took place in 1975. The resolution aims to honor those who bravely opposed the Emergency, recognizing their sacrifices in the face of suppression of democratic rights and constitutional guarantees. The Emergency is acknowledged as a critical period in Indian history, particularly highlighting the attempted stabilization of the Navnirman Andolan and the Sampoorna Kranti Abhiyan, both movements aimed at reforming governance in the country.

Key factual highlights from the Cabinet's resolution include:

• Observance of Silence: A two-minute silence was held during the Cabinet meeting to pay tribute to individuals whose rights were suspended during the Emergency and who suffered from various oppressive measures taken by the government at the time.

• Historical Context: The year 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of Samvidhan Hatya Diwas ("Constitution Day"), which signifies a critical juncture in Indian history characterized by a systematic attack on the Constitution, undermining of federalism, and suspension of fundamental rights.

• Resilience of Democratic Values: The Cabinet reaffirmed the unwavering faith of the Indian populace in the Constitution and emphasized the importance of remembering the resilience and exemplary courage displayed by those who resisted authoritarianism. The statement calls for both younger and older generations to derive inspiration from these historical events to defend democratic and constitutional principles.

• National Identity: The resolution frames India as the "Mother of Democracy," emphasizing the country's commitment to safeguarding constitutional values and renewing collective resolve to uphold the principles of democracy and federalism.

The Cabinet’s decision is not only a tribute but also serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding democratic rights and institutions, encouraging societal reflection on the critical role of the Constitution in Indian governance.

Bullet Points:

• The Union Cabinet resolved to commemorate 50 years since the Emergency Proclamation in 1975.
• A two-minute silence was observed in tribute to the victims of Emergency's suppression of rights.
• The year 2025 will mark the 50th anniversary of Samvidhan Hatya Diwas.
• The Cabinet recognized the historical context of the Emergency, highlighting attacks on democratic values and federalism.
• Emphasis on the need for resilience in defending the Constitution and democratic rights.
• The resolution reinforces India's identity as the "Mother of Democracy."
• A call to action for all generations to uphold and protect constitutional values amidst threats to democracy.

The Delhi High Court has issued a status quo order until July 10 concerning demolition notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against residents in the Batla House area of Okhla. The court will hear this matter in conjunction with other petitions related to the demolitions on the scheduled date.

Key Legal Points and Background:

• Court Order: The Delhi High Court ordered status quo on the demolition notices dated June 24, 2025.
• Next Hearing Date: The court scheduling further hearings on July 10 to address related petitions regarding demolition in the area.
• DDA's Action: The DDA's demolition notices have been contested by local residents who argue that the authority has not followed due process. They claim that the demolitions target properties that fall outside the designated demolition zone and do not follow proper guidelines set forth by the government.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• Indiscriminate Targeting: The petitioners contend that the DDA and the Delhi government are indiscriminately targeting properties without issuing individual notices, as required by law.
• Survey and Notification: The contested demolitions followed a survey conducted on June 4, with notifications regarding “imminent coercive action” despite the properties being outside mandated zones.
• PM-UDAY Scheme: The petitioners argue that their properties are covered under the PM-UDAY scheme (Pradhan Mantri Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Yojana), which provides legal property rights to residents of unauthorized colonies in Delhi.
• Lack of Verification: There has been no demarcation report or verification provided regarding the eligibility under the PM-UDAY scheme, constituting a violation of natural justice and constitutional rights such as the right to livelihood and equal protection under the law.
• Protection for Similar Residents: The petitioners also highlighted that the court had previously granted interim protection to others in similar situations, implying that their cases deserved equal consideration.

Supreme Court Involvement:

• Supreme Court Directive: On May 7, prior to the events unfolding in this petition, the Supreme Court ordered the DDA to take action against unauthorized constructions located on "Khasra number 279" in Okhla, which encompasses an area of 0.702 hectares along Muradi Road.

Constitutional and Legal Framework:

• Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioners invoke fundamental legal principles emphasizing that due process must be adhered to, particularly when governmental actions significantly affect residents’ rights.
• Constitutional Rights: The arguments made by the petitioners also refer to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to livelihood which is essential for residents’ survival and flourishing in urban settings.

Summary of Events and Implications:

• The situation highlights ongoing tensions between urban development policies and the rights of residents in unauthorized colonies, illustrating broader issues surrounding housing rights and urban planning in Delhi.
• The outcomes of this court case could have significant implications for property rights and urban management policies, especially in light of the PM-UDAY scheme’s framework for protecting residents living in unauthorized colonies.

Important Points:

• Delhi High Court maintains status quo on demolition notices until further hearings.
• Allegations of indiscriminate targeting and lack of process by the DDA.
• Arguments focus on rights under the PM-UDAY scheme.
• Supreme Court had previously ordered demolitions in specified areas.
• Case points to a broader legal and social issue regarding unauthorized colonies in urban Delhi.

This summary provides an objective overview of the legal proceedings and implications concerning the demolitions in Okhla and the residents' rights under Indian constitutional law and government schemes.

Summary of News Article on Commemoration of Samvidhan Hatya Diwas

Event Overview:

• The Union Ministry of Culture, in partnership with the Government of Delhi, is set to commemorate Samvidhan Hatya Diwas on June 25, 2025, marking 50 years since the declaration of Emergency in India in 1975.
• This date serves to reflect on the importance of safeguarding democratic values and constitutional rights, as the Emergency is recognized as a significant dark period in India’s post-independence history.

Historical Context:

• The Emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, resulting in the suspension of fundamental rights, curtailing of press freedoms, and silencing of democratic institutions.
• In 2024, the Government of India officially recognized June 25 as Samvidhan Hatya Diwas, emphasizing the need to remember this critical chapter in Indian history.

Key Figures Attending:

• The event in Delhi will be attended by:
  • Shri Amit Shah, Union Minister for Home Affairs (Chief Guest)
  • Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw, Union Minister of Railways, Information & Broadcasting, and Electronics & IT
  • Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Union Minister of Culture and Tourism
  • Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
  • Smt. Rekha Gupta, Chief Minister of Delhi

Highlights of the Event:

1. Special Exhibition on Indian Democracy:

   • Comprises three sections:
     • Bharat – Mother of Democracy: Highlights ancient democratic traditions.
     • Dark Days of Democracy: Chronicles the 1975 Emergency.
     • Strengthening Democracy in India: Focuses on recent democratic reforms, including:
       • Electoral transparency
       • Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam
       • Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)
       • Digital public grievance platforms

2. Theatrical Play by the National School of Drama (NSD): A dramatization showcasing the Emergency's effects on citizens and institutions.

3. Screening of a Short Film: A film reflecting on the Emergency’s imposition and its impacts.

4. Signature Tribute Wall: An interactive installation inviting citizens to express their commitment to constitutional values.

5. Flag-Off of the “#LongLiveDemocracy Yatra”: Initiated by Shri Amit Shah, the Yatra will traverse India to promote awareness of constitutional values, democratic rights, and historical lessons from the Emergency.

Nationwide Commemorative Efforts:

• Various States and Union Territories will host programs led by Chief Ministers, Governors, and Lieutenant Governors that will:
  • Honor individuals who defended democracy during the Emergency.
  • Include exhibitions, public discussions, and film screenings.
  • Promote dialogue across generations about the resilience of democratic institutions.

Additional Initiatives:

• The Ministry of Culture is coordinating the launch of the “Long Live Democracy” exhibition at 50 key locations across each State and Union Territory, which will be accessible to the public in the upcoming weeks.

Cultural Significance:

• The concept of democracy in Bharat transcends mere governance; it is interconnected with India's civilizational ethos, deeply woven into its historical and cultural tapestry.
• Samvidhan Hatya Diwas serves not only as a reflection on past injustices but also as a reaffirmation of commitment to uphold democratic principles and constitutional integrity.

Important Points:

• Commemorative event on June 25, 2025, for 50 years since Emergency declaration.
• Recognizes Emergency as a dark period with suspended rights and freedoms.
• Key dignitaries include Union Home Minister Amit Shah and other government officials.
• Exhibition features historical and contemporary aspects of Indian democracy.
• Nationwide initiatives to foster discussions and honor defenders of democracy.