Emergency Provisions in India: Historical Background

Why in News?  Union Home Minister Amit Shah chaired the 25th Central Zonal Council meeting in Varanasi recently, urging the Chief Ministers of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh to enhance gram panchayat revenue and strengthen the Panchayati Raj system. The meeting addressed critical regional and national issues, fostering federal unity and development.

Relevance : UPSC Pre &  Mains

Prelims : Key provisions

Mains :   GS 2

The emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Part XVIII (Articles 352 to 360), are a critical mechanism designed to address extraordinary situations that threaten the nation’s security, stability, or financial integrity.

Colonial Legacy and Pre-Independence Context

• The emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution were significantly influenced by the Government of India Act, 1935, enacted by the British colonial government. This act provided a framework for governance in British India, including mechanisms for the central authority to intervene in provincial affairs during crises.

Influence of the Weimar Constitution

• Another significant influence was the Weimar Constitution of Germany (1919–1933), particularly its provisions for suspending fundamental rights during emergencies. The Weimar Constitution’s Article 48 allowed the President to take extraordinary measures, including suspending civil liberties, to restore order during crises.
• The Indian Constitution borrowed the concept of suspending fundamental rights during emergencies, particularly under Articles 358 and 359, which allow for the suspension of certain rights (except those under Articles 20 and 21) during a national emergency.
• B.R. Ambedkar, a key architect of the Constitution, emphasized the unique nature of India’s federal structure, which could transition to a unitary system during emergencies. He described this flexibility as a “novel feature” of the Constitution, enabling the central government to respond decisively to threats while maintaining democratic governance.

Constitutional Framework and Types of Emergencies:

The Indian Constitution provides for three types of emergencies under Part XVIII:

National Emergency (Article 352): Declared due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion (originally “internal disturbance” until amended by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978). It allows the President to proclaim an emergency across the entire country or specific regions, suspending certain fundamental rights and centralizing power.

State Emergency or President’s Rule (Article 356): Imposed when there is a failure of constitutional machinery in a state, based on the Governor’s report or other sources. The central government assumes control of the state’s administration, and the state legislature’s powers may be exercised by Parliament.

Financial Emergency (Article 360): Declared when the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened. This allows the central government to issue directions to states for financial propriety and reduce salaries of public officials, including judges.

Historical Instances of Emergency in India:

First National Emergency (1962–1968):

• The first national emergency was declared on October 26, 1962, during the Sino-Indian War, when Chinese aggression in the North-East Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh) posed a threat to India’s territorial integrity. Proclaimed under Article 352 on the grounds of “external aggression,” this emergency lasted until January 10, 1968, as the government sought to consolidate national security and mobilize resources.
• During this period, the six fundamental rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc.) were automatically suspended, as per Article 358, and the central government exercised enhanced powers over the states. This emergency was relatively uncontroversial, as it was seen as a necessary response to a clear external threat.

Second National Emergency (1971–1977):

• The second national emergency was declared on December 3, 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan War, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. Proclaimed on the grounds of “external aggression,” this emergency overlapped with the 1962 emergency, which was still in effect.
• It remained in force until March 21, 1977, and was justified by the need to address the war’s impact on national security. Like the 1962 emergency, it involved the suspension of Article 19 rights and centralized governance.

Third National Emergency (1975–1977):

• The third and most controversial national emergency was declared on June 25, 1975, by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, under the presidency of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, on the grounds of “internal disturbance.”
• This proclamation followed a political crisis triggered by the Allahabad High Court’s ruling on June 12, 1975, which declared Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election from Rae Bareli invalid due to electoral malpractices and barred her from holding public office for six years.
• The 1975–1977 emergency, often referred to as “the Emergency,” is considered a dark chapter in Indian democracy. Fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, were suspended through presidential orders under Article 359. The government curtailed civil liberties, censored the press, and detained political opponents without trial, leading to widespread allegations of authoritarianism.
• The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) case became a notorious landmark, where the Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the suspension of habeas corpus, effectively denying citizens the right to challenge unlawful detentions. Justice H.R. Khannarosa challenged this view, arguing that the right to life could not be suspended.

President’s Rule (Article 356):

• President’s Rule has been imposed over 130 times since 1950, often in cases of political instability or failure of constitutional machinery in states.
• The first instance occurred in Punjab in 1951. Notable cases include the dissolution of state assemblies in Tamil Nadu (1976 and 1991) and numerous other states. The frequent use of Article 356 has been controversial, with critics arguing it has been misused for political purposes. The R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case was a landmark judgment, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to curb arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule, emphasizing that it should be a last resort and subject to judicial review.

 Financial Emergency:

• A Financial Emergency under Article 360 has never been imposed in India to date. This provision remains a theoretical tool to address severe financial crises, with safeguards requiring parliamentary approval within two months.

Constitutional Amendments and Safeguards:

• The misuse of emergency powers during 1975–1977 led to significant reforms through the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, enacted under the Janata Party government to prevent future abuses. Key changes included:
• Replacing “internal disturbance” with “armed rebellion” in Article 352 to narrow the grounds for declaring a national emergency.
• Requiring a written request from the Cabinet for the President to proclaim a national emergency, ensuring collective decision-making.
• Mandating parliamentary approval within one month (reduced from two months) for a national emergency proclamation, with re-approval every six months.
• Making national emergency proclamations subject to judicial review, as affirmed in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case, which ruled that the President’s satisfaction could be challenged if based on mala fide or extraneous grounds.
• Ensuring that Article 19 rights are not suspended during an emergency declared on the grounds of armed rebellion.

Criticism

• Potential for Misuse: The 1975 emergency highlighted the risk of emergency powers being used to suppress dissent and consolidate political power.
• Erosion of Federalism: Centralization during emergencies undermines the federal structure, reducing state autonomy.
• Civil Liberties: Suspension of fundamental rights, as seen in 1975, raises concerns about authoritarianism and human rights violations.

Landmark Judicial Interventions:

• Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964): Upheld the legality of detentions during a national emergency under Article 359, emphasizing the suspension of enforcement of certain rights.
• R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Established guidelines for Article 356, limiting its use to cases of genuine constitutional breakdown and affirming judicial review.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed judicial review of national emergency proclamations, ensuring accountability.

Conclusion

The emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution reflect a balance between the need for strong central authority during crises and the preservation of democratic principles. Rooted in the colonial legacy of the Government of India Act, 1935, and inspired by the Weimar Constitution, these provisions were designed to address extraordinary threats to India’s sovereignty, unity, and stability. While they have been effective in managing crises like the 1962 and 1971 wars, the 1975 emergency exposed their potential for misuse, leading to significant constitutional reforms.