The Overlooked Chapter of India’s Experience with Presidential Rule

During the mid-1970s, India experienced a significant political shift under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule, a period marked by the suspension of civil liberties and the imprisonment of political opponents. Historian Srinath Raghavan, in his new book “Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India,” reveals how Gandhi’s administration sought to redefine the nation’s governance structure. The Congress party aimed to transition from a parliamentary democracy to a more centralized presidential system, inspired by models like that of Charles de Gaulle’s France. This ambitious plan, however, never fully materialized, leaving a lasting impact on India’s political landscape.

The Push for a Presidential System

In September 1975, BK Nehru, a close aide to Indira Gandhi, wrote a letter advocating for a shift towards a presidential system. He described the Emergency as a “tour de force of immense courage” and suggested that parliamentary democracy had failed to meet India’s needs. Nehru argued for a directly elected president who could make tough decisions without the constraints of parliamentary approval. His vision included a single seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in legislative bodies, and a judiciary with limited powers. Nehru’s proposals were met with enthusiasm from senior Congress leaders, indicating a strong desire within the party to consolidate power.

The discussions surrounding these ideas led to the drafting of a document titled “A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some Suggestions.” This document, circulated among trusted advisors, proposed a president with extensive powers, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. It aimed to create a “Superior Council of Judiciary” that would interpret laws, effectively diminishing the Supreme Court’s authority. While the proposals did not evolve into a formal plan, they influenced the Forty-second Amendment Act of 1976, which expanded parliamentary powers and limited judicial review.

The Forty-second Amendment and Its Implications

The Forty-second Amendment, passed in December 1976, marked a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history. It aimed to centralize executive authority and made it more challenging for the judiciary to strike down laws. The amendment required supermajorities of judges to invalidate legislation and sought to dilute the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine, which had previously limited parliamentary power. Additionally, it granted the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states and extended President’s Rule from six months to a year.

This amendment did not establish a presidential system but laid the groundwork for a powerful executive, a marginalized judiciary, and weakened checks and balances. Critics, including the Statesman newspaper, warned that the amendment tilted the constitutional balance in favor of Parliament, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic principles. The political climate during this period was characterized by a push for greater authority within the Congress party, with some leaders openly advocating for lifelong power for Gandhi.

Gandhi’s Consideration of the Presidency

Despite the push for a more centralized power structure, Indira Gandhi remained cautious about fully embracing a presidential system. After her defeat in the 1977 elections, the Janata Party government sought to reverse the authoritarian provisions of the Forty-second Amendment through subsequent amendments. However, when Gandhi returned to power in 1980, discussions about a presidential system resurfaced. In 1982, as President Sanjiva Reddy’s term was ending, Gandhi contemplated stepping down as prime minister to assume the presidency herself.

Her principal secretary revealed that Gandhi was “very serious” about this move, viewing the presidency as a means to rejuvenate the Congress party. Ultimately, she chose to elevate her loyal home minister, Zail Singh, to the presidency instead. This decision reflected her strategic approach to power and governance, as she opted to maintain her position as prime minister while still exerting influence over the presidency.

The Legacy of Indira Gandhi’s Rule

The desire for a presidential system within the Congress party persisted even after Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. Voices advocating for a shift to presidential governance continued to emerge, indicating that the conversation around this governance model had not entirely faded. However, India’s parliamentary democracy remained intact, shaped by the complex political dynamics of the time.

Historian Srinath Raghavan emphasizes that the push for a presidential system during the Emergency was primarily a tactical move by Gandhi to consolidate her power. The lasting consequences of her rule were often unintended, as the primary goal was to shield her office from challenges. The political landscape of India, marked by fragile coalitions and competitive elections, ultimately proved resistant to radical changes in governance.

Observer Voice is the one stop site for National, International news, Sports, Editor’s Choice, Art/culture contents, Quotes and much more. We also cover historical contents. Historical contents includes World History, Indian History, and what happened today. The website also covers Entertainment across the India and World.

Follow Us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, & LinkedIn