India Explained
RepealedINCIndira Gandhi

Press censorship during the Emergency (1975-1977)

After the June 1975 Emergency proclamation the government imposed pre-publication censorship on newspapers; the 1976 press law was repealed in April 1977. The Shah Commission later reported on its use.

Press freedom

Facts

  • A Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 on the ground of internal disturbance was issued on the night of 25 June 1975; Delhi newspapers did not appear on 26 June 1975 [1].
  • The Shah Commission's First Interim Report (11 March 1978) found that electricity to newspaper offices in Delhi was disconnected that night on oral orders conveyed from the Lieutenant Governor to the General Manager of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, who it said was not authorised to disconnect supply without notice [1].
  • Censorship guidelines were issued on 3-4 July 1975 and revised on 13 July 1975, according to the Commission; the Information Minister told the Commission that the guidelines had no statutory force [1].
  • The Principal Information Officer categorised newspapers as friendly, neutral or hostile; the Indian Express was rated 'continuously hostile' and The Statesman 'B' (otherwise hostile), while the Times of India, Hindustan Times, Amrit Bazar Patrika and The Hindu were rated 'A+'. The Commission found that government advertising was allotted according to these categories [1].
  • The Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, 1976 gave the government power to ban reporting on specified subjects for up to two months, close down offending journals and seize presses [3].
  • Freedom First (Minoo Masani) and Bhoomiputra (Chunibhai Vaidya) succeeded in the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts against specific censorship orders; the rulings did not strike down censorship generally [1].
  • The Emergency was revoked on 22 March 1977 and censorship was reported lifted by then; the Janata government's Information Minister L.K. Advani introduced a bill to repeal the 1976 Act, which the Rajya Sabha took up for consideration on 9 April 1977 [2][3].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The proclamation cited internal disturbance as the ground for the Emergency [1].
  • Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's address on the Emergency, as reported in later accounts, referred to a deep and widespread conspiracy against the government [4].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • The Shah Commission concluded that censorship was used to suppress news unfavourable to the government, to play up news favourable to it, and to suppress news unfavourable to supporters of the Congress party [1].
  • The Commission found the power disconnection and categorisation were carried out without formal written orders or statutory basis in the cases it examined [1].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Claimed benefit: restricting reports the government considered likely to aggravate disorder during the Emergency.This was the government's position as reflected in the proclamation's internal-disturbance ground [1]. No independent outcome measure supporting the claim was located in the sources reviewed.
  • The censorship arrangements were time-limited: censorship ended with the revocation of the Emergency and the 1976 Act was repealed within weeks.Emergency revoked 22 March 1977; repeal bill taken up in the Rajya Sabha on 9 April 1977 [2][3].

Concerns (3)

  • Pre-publication control of news and selective advertising pressure.Newspapers categorised by stance; Indian Express and The Statesman lost substantial advertising revenue as circulation rose, per the Shah Commission [1].
  • Absence of statutory authority for key measures.Information Minister's statement that guidelines had no statutory force; findings on oral orders for the power cut [1].
  • Breadth of the 1976 Act.Powers to ban subjects, close journals and seize presses [3].

Evidence points

−10.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
−12 to −9
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean −4.5A −4B −5
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean −3.5A −3B −4
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean −0.5A 0B −1
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean −5.0A −5B −5
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +3.0A +3B +3

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Shah Commission found censorship used to suppress unfavourable news with no statutory basis for key measures, harming press freedom nationwide, though reversed within weeks of revocation.

Scorer B. Pre-publication censorship without statutory basis suppressed news across the press, as found by the Shah Commission, though it ended with the Emergency.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Before June 1975 newspapers were published without a general system of pre-publication censorship; the Emergency also suspended other civil liberties.
Lag before outcomes show
1 year
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are −9 and −12. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

Censorship during the Emergency operated through a combination of administrative guidelines, a press law enacted in 1976, control of newsprint and advertising, and the immediate disconnection of power on the night of the proclamation. The Shah Commission, appointed by the subsequent government, examined these measures and recorded its findings in interim and final reports.

The government of the time based the Emergency on internal disturbance and, in accounts of the Prime Minister’s address, on an alleged conspiracy. Critics, including the Shah Commission, concluded that censorship was used for political ends. The Janata government that took office in 1977 repealed the 1976 Act.

Note that the Shah Commission was constituted by a successor government and its findings were itself contested by supporters of the earlier government; the sources reviewed here describe the report through secondary summaries rather than the report itself.

Sources

  1. Predicament of the press during the Emergency
    The Leaflet (summarising Shah Commission First Interim Report)Media

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedBJPMedia & Information

    IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

    Rules under the IT Act set due-diligence duties for social media platforms and a three-tier oversight structure for digital news and streaming. A 2023 amendment on fact-checking was struck down by the Bombay High Court.

    Evidence points −2.5 (range −4.0 to −1.0)