Late on the night of June 25, 1975, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, acting on the recommendation of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, proclaimed a state of Emergency, citing threats to the nation’s internal security. But the trigger, according to historians, was a June 12 judgement of the Allahabad High Court, upholding a petition that charged Gandhi with corrupt practices in her 1971 election.We examine the judgment, the findings against Gandhi, and the role it played in triggering the Emergency.The Allahabad High Court became the stage for a closely watched legal battle when Raj Narain, the socialist leader defeated by Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Rae Bareilly parliamentary election, challenged her victory. Known as the Election Case, the petition alleged that the prime minister had secured her win through corrupt practices, particularly by exceeding the legal limit on campaign spending and by using government officials and state machinery to support her campaign.The case dragged on through 1973 and 1974, with arguments and counterarguments presented before Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha.On March 19, 1975, Gandhi became the first Indian prime minister to testify in court. She spent five hours in the witness box, answering questions about her election campaign. The judgment would be delivered in June. Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha at the Allahabad HC on June 12, 1975. (Express Archives)Historian Ramachandra Guha notes in India After Gandhi (2008): “On the morning of 12 June, in Room No. 15 of a court in which Mrs Gandhi’s father and grandfather had both practised, Justice Sinha read out his judgement in the case brought before him three years previously by Raj Narain.”Justice Sinha dismissed twelve of the fourteen charges against Gandhi. However, in his 238-page ruling, he upheld two findings. Story continues below this adFirst, he ruled that Yashpal Kapoor, Gandhi’s former private secretary, had begun functioning as her election agent before formally resigning from government service. Second, he found that officials of the Uttar Pradesh government had assisted her campaign by preparing facilities for election meetings, including arranging electricity and erecting a rostrum from which she addressed voters.Also Read | Explained: The story of the EmergencyOn these grounds, Sinha declared Gandhi’s 1971 election void and barred her from contesting elections for six years. However, he also granted her twenty days to appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court.Reactions to the June 12 judgement The day after the Allahabad High Court verdict, Opposition leaders protested outside Rashtrapati Bhavan, demanding that the president dismiss what they called a “corrupt” prime minister.Story continues below this adGandhi’s supporters, however, moved swiftly to counter this campaign. On June 13 itself, Haryana chief minister Bansi Lal began ferrying Congress workers and supporters into Delhi to publicly demonstrate their loyalty to her. Guha writes: “The roads outside the prime minister’s house were choked with her admirers. These shouted slogans in her favour and burnt effigies of Justice Sinha.” Also Read | How Indira Gandhi used the Constitution to subvert democracyGandhi emerged to address the crowds, alleging that foreign powers were conspiring with her domestic opponents to remove her from office. Her adversaries, she claimed, had “lots of money at their disposal”. Every day, more supporters gathered outside Mrs Gandhi’s house, and she came out to speak to them.On June 20, Gandhi addressed a massive rally at Delhi’s Boat Club lawns. Flanked by her sons and daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi, she invoked the Nehru-Gandhi family’s tradition of public service and pledged to serve the nation “till her last breath”. What the Supreme Court said On June 23, the Supreme Court began hearing Gandhi’s appeal. The next day, Justice V R Krishna Iyer issued a conditional stay on the Allahabad judgement; the prime minister could continue to attend Parliament, but she could neither vote nor draw a salary until her appeal was decided by the full Supreme Court bench. Story continues below this adInterestingly though, Sinha noted that the High Court judgement might ultimately prove weak, since the violations it identified were not the “graver electoral vices” listed under the relevant law.At this point, some advised Gandhi to resign temporarily and allow a senior colleague, such as Jagjivan Ram, to serve as interim prime minister until the case was resolved. Also Read | Explained: Emergency and its lessons“But she was not convinced that this would be temporary,” writes historian Gyan Prakash in Emergency Chronicles (2019). “She was sure that a conspiracy was afoot against her. She suspected the CIA and Richard Nixon, citing the coup against Chile’s Salvador Allende.” Those urging her to remain in office included her son Sanjay Gandhi, West Bengal chief minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Haryana chief minister Bansi Lal, several Congress leaders and the Communist Party of India (CPI).Story continues below this adThe next day — June 25 — the Opposition held a large rally at Delhi’s Ramlila Grounds. Jayaprakash Narayan (known as JP), who was leading the anti-government movement, announced a week-long protest starting June 29, demanding the prime minister’s resignation.Meanwhile, Prakash writes: “Having obtained the injunction, Indira swiftly moved to secure the proclamation of Emergency.” On June 25, Ray helped draft an ordinance declaring a state of internal Emergency, which was promptly signed by the President when placed before him. That night, the electricity supply to newspaper offices across Delhi was cut, preventing morning editions from appearing on June 26. By the next day, state-controlled radio informed the country that an Emergency had been declared and that civil liberties had been suspended. Police units then moved swiftly against Opposition leaders, arresting JP, Morarji Desai and many others.Story continues below this ad“Most lawyers believed that the Supreme Court would reverse the Allahabad judgement. Yet, as one respected Delhi jurist put it, the prime minister forsook ‘the advantages of the ordinary judicial remedy of appeal and resorted instead to the extraordinary, undemocratic and unconstitutional measures of Emergency’,” writes Guha.