The plea states that 'the present petition is a plea for justice and restitution of a lifetime spent in utter misery and anguish
A 94 years-old widow has moved the Supreme Court, seeking for the 'Proclamation of Emergency' in 1975 to be declared as unconstitutional.
She has also asked for compensation of Rs. 25 crores from the authorities, reports LiveLaw.
The plea is drawn by Advocate Dr Neela Gokhale and filed by Advocate-on-Record Anannya Ghosh.
It states that 'the present petition is a plea for justice and restitution of a lifetime spent in utter misery and anguish on account of the atrocities suffered by the Petitioner, her deceased husband and her family'.
Relying on the 2017 judgment of KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India which overruled the 5-Judge Bench decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the plea states that the burial of the darkest chapter in Indian democracy is yet to provide respite to the Petitioner who suffered atrocities at the hands of the authorities during the Emergency period.
As victims of the Emergency, the petition recounts that the then government authorities, targeted the Petitioner and her husband with unjustifiable and arbitrary detention orders, and consequently led to them fleeing the country.
'His business was shut down, assets and valuables including immovable property were seized and appropriated. The Petitioner's husband succumbed to the pressure and died. Since then the Petitioner has been single-handedly facing all proceedings initiated against her husband during the Emergency period, which were arbitrarily pursued'.
Referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in December 2014 which ultimately quashed the proceedings against the deceased husband of the Petitioner, the plea then conveys that valuables worth crores of rupees from the flourishing business of the husband, which were seized, are yet to be restituted, according to a report by LiveLaw.
Additionally, it was only viding order dated 28th July 2020, that the High Court directed for payment of arrears of rent for one of the properties to the Petitioner and other legal heirs. However, it has been contended that other valuable movable properties have been siphoned away.
'Needless to say, that the valuable movable properties have been siphoned away and illegally appropriated by many government authorities and private persons during the time of emergency. Ironically, the Petitioner's son had the most unpleasant experience and was shocked to see a few of the stolen pieces of his mother's jewellery up for sale in New Delhi'.
At her advanced age, the Petitioner has sought for the fulfilment of a simple desire to achieve closure to her trauma and receive an acknowledgement of her suffices.
The instant plea has been filed before the Supreme Court and the matter is likely to be listed on December before a Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul.