Emergency Provisions – UPSC Notes – Indian Polity

The Emergency provisions, outlined in Part XVIII of the Constitution spanning from Articles 352 to 360, empower the Central government to effectively address extraordinary circumstances. These provisions were included in the Constitution to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty, unity, integrity, and security, as well as to uphold the democratic political system and the Constitution itself.

During an Emergency, the Central government assumes unprecedented authority, and the states fall under its complete control. This transition effectively shifts the federal structure of governance to a unitary one, all without formal constitutional amendment. Such a shift from federalism in peaceful times to unitarism in crisis is a distinctive trait of the Indian Constitution. Dr. B R Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, remarked:

“While federal systems like the American one are rigidly bound to their federal framework, unable to deviate regardless of circumstances, the Constitution of India is adaptable. It can operate both as a federal and unitary system, adjusting to the needs of the moment. In normalcy, it functions as federal, but in emergencies, it effectively transitions to a unitary system.”

The Constitution delineates three types of emergencies:

1. National Emergency: Arising from war, external aggression, or armed rebellion (Article 352). Despite its colloquial name, the Constitution refers to it as a ‘proclamation of emergency.’
2. President’s Rule: Emerges from the breakdown of constitutional machinery in states (Article 356), also termed as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency.’ Interestingly, the Constitution does not explicitly label this situation as an ’emergency.’
3. Financial Emergency: Triggered by a threat to India’s financial stability or credit (Article 360).

National Emergency

Grounds for Declaration

According to Article 352, the President holds the authority to declare a national emergency if the security of India or any part of it faces a threat from war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. It’s noteworthy that the President can make this declaration even before the actual commencement of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion if there’s a clear and present danger.

Additionally, the President can issue multiple proclamations regarding war, external aggression, armed rebellion, or imminent threats, irrespective of whether there’s already a proclamation in effect. This provision was introduced through the 38th Amendment Act of 1975.

When a national emergency is declared due to ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’, it is termed an ‘External Emergency‘. Conversely, if it is declared based on ‘armed rebellion’, it is referred to as an ‘Internal Emergency‘.

A proclamation of national emergency may encompass the entire country or only a specific region. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 empowered the President to confine the effect of a National Emergency to a particular part of India.

Initially, the Constitution mentioned ‘internal disturbance’ as a grounds for declaring a National Emergency. However, this term was considered too vague and wide-ranging. Consequently, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 replaced ‘internal disturbance’ with ‘armed rebellion’. As a result, declaring a National Emergency solely on the basis of ‘internal disturbance’, as was done in 1975 by the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi, is no longer possible.

The President can only declare a national emergency upon receiving a written recommendation from the cabinet, ensuring that the emergency is declared with the concurrence of the cabinet and not solely on the advice of the prime minister. However, in 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi advised the president to declare an emergency without consulting her cabinet. The cabinet was informed of the proclamation after its issuance, as a fait accompli. To prevent such unilateral decisions by the prime minister, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced this safeguard.

The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 initially shielded the declaration of a National Emergency from judicial review. However, this provision was later revoked by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Furthermore, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the proclamation of a national emergency could be legally challenged if it was found to be motivated by malafide intentions or based on irrelevant or absurd facts.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration

The declaration of an Emergency requires approval from both Houses of Parliament within one month of its issuance. Originally, this approval period was two months, but it was reduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. However, if the Emergency proclamation is made when the Lok Sabha is dissolved or if dissolution occurs during the one-month period without approval, it remains valid until 30 days after the reconstitution of the Lok Sabha, provided the Rajya Sabha has already approved it.

If both Houses of Parliament approve the Emergency, it lasts for six months and can be extended indefinitely with parliamentary approval every six months. This provision for periodic parliamentary approval was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Prior to this, once approved by Parliament, the Emergency could persist as long as the Executive (cabinet) desired. However, if dissolution of the Lok Sabha occurs during the six-month period without approving its continuation, the proclamation remains in effect until 30 days after the reconstitution of the Lok Sabha, provided the Rajya Sabha has already approved its continuation.

Any resolution approving the proclamation of an emergency or its extension must be passed by either House of Parliament with a special majority. This entails (a) a majority of the total membership of that house and (b) a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting. This provision for a special majority was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Previously, such resolutions could be passed with a simple majority in Parliament.

Revocation of Emergency Proclamation

The President holds the authority to revoke a proclamation of emergency at any time through a subsequent proclamation, and this action does not necessitate parliamentary approval.

Moreover, if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving the continuation of the emergency, the President is mandated to revoke the proclamation. This additional safeguard was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Prior to this amendment, the President could unilaterally revoke the proclamation without any oversight from the Lok Sabha.

Furthermore, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 stipulates that if one-tenth of the total members of the Lok Sabha provide a written notice to the Speaker (or to the President if the House is not in session), a special sitting of the House must be convened within 14 days. The purpose of this special session is to consider a resolution disapproving the continuation of the emergency proclamation.

There are two key distinctions between a resolution of disapproval and a resolution approving the continuation of a proclamation:

1. A resolution of disapproval is required to be passed solely by the Lok Sabha, whereas the resolution approving continuation must be passed by both Houses of Parliament.
2. A resolution of disapproval is adopted by a simple majority only, whereas the resolution approving continuation requires adoption by a special majority.

Effects of National Emergency

A proclamation of Emergency brings about drastic and wide-ranging impacts on the political system. These consequences can be categorized into three main areas:

1. Effect on Centre–State Relations
2. Effect on the Life of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
3. Effect on Fundamental Rights

Effect on Centre–State Relations: During a national emergency, the normal dynamics of Centre–state relations undergo a fundamental change, which can be analyzed under three main aspects: executive, legislative, and financial.

(a) Executive: Under a national emergency, the executive power of the Centre extends to directing any state on the manner of exercising its executive power. While in ordinary times, such directives are limited to specific matters, during an emergency, the Centre gains the authority to issue directives on any matter, effectively placing state governments under complete control, albeit without suspension.

(b) Legislative: Throughout a national emergency, Parliament gains the authority to legislate on any subject listed in the State List. Although the legislative power of state legislatures remains intact, it becomes subject to the overriding authority of Parliament. Consequently, the normal distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and states is suspended, without suspending state legislatures themselves. Notably, laws enacted by Parliament on state subjects during a national emergency become inoperative six months after the emergency ends. Additionally, the President can issue ordinances on state subjects if Parliament is not in session. Furthermore, Parliament can confer powers and impose duties on the Centre or its officers regarding matters outside the Union List to enforce laws made under its extended jurisdiction during a national emergency.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 expanded these consequences to apply not only to states where the emergency is in effect but also to other states.

(c) Financial: While a national emergency is in effect, the President can modify the constitutional distribution of revenues between the Centre and states, including reducing or canceling the transfer of finances from the Centre to the states. Such modifications last until the end of the financial year in which the emergency concludes. Additionally, every such presidential order must be presented before both Houses of Parliament.

Effect on the Life of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly

During a National Emergency, the tenure of the Lok Sabha can be prolonged beyond its usual term of five years through legislation enacted by Parliament, extending it for one year at a time (for any duration). However, this extension cannot persist beyond six months after the conclusion of the emergency. For instance, the term of the Fifth Lok Sabha (1971–1977) was prolonged twice, each time by one year.

Similarly, Parliament can extend the standard tenure of a state legislative assembly (typically five years) by one year at a time (for any duration) during a National Emergency, with a maximum extension period of six months beyond the conclusion of the Emergency.

Effect on the Fundamental Rights

The impact of a National Emergency on Fundamental Rights is delineated in Articles 358 and 359. Article 358 pertains to the suspension of Fundamental Rights outlined in Article 19, while Article 359 pertains to the suspension of other Fundamental Rights, barring those protected by Articles 20 and 21. These provisions are elucidated as follows:

(a) Suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19: Article 358 stipulates that upon the declaration of a national emergency, the six Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 19 are automatically suspended, obviating the necessity for separate orders to effect their suspension. During the period of a national emergency, the state is exempted from the constraints imposed by Article 19, granting it the authority to enact laws or undertake executive actions curtailing or nullifying the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19. Such laws or executive actions are immune from challenge on the basis of inconsistency with the aforementioned Fundamental Rights. Upon the cessation of the National Emergency, Article 19 automatically reinstates and becomes enforceable. Any laws enacted during the emergency, to the extent of their incongruity with Article 19, lose their efficacy. However, there exists no recourse for actions taken during the Emergency, even after its termination. Thus, legislative and executive actions carried out during the emergency period remain immune to challenge post-emergency cessation.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced two key restrictions on the scope of Article 358. Firstly, it narrowed the circumstances under which the six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 could be suspended, allowing for suspension only in the event of a National Emergency declared due to war or external aggression, not armed rebellion. Secondly, it limited the protection of laws related to the Emergency from being challenged, excluding other laws. Additionally, only executive actions taken under such specific laws were shielded.

(b) Regarding the suspension of other Fundamental Rights, Article 359 empowers the president to suspend the right to seek judicial enforcement of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency. This implies that under Article 359, the Fundamental Rights themselves aren’t suspended, but rather their enforceability. The suspended enforcement applies solely to the Fundamental Rights specified in the Presidential Order, which can be for the duration of the emergency or a shorter period as specified, with the possibility of extending to the entire or partial territory of the country. The order must be presented before both Houses of Parliament for approval.

While a Presidential Order is in effect, the State gains the authority to enact laws or take executive actions curtailing or nullifying the specified Fundamental Rights. Such legislation or actions cannot be legally challenged for inconsistency with the specified Fundamental Rights. Upon the Order’s cessation, any such laws become ineffective to the extent of their inconsistency with the specified Fundamental Rights, but no remedy is available for actions taken during its operation, even after its expiration. Consequently, legislative and executive actions undertaken during the Order’s operation remain immune to challenge even after its expiration.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 also restricted the scope of Article 359 in two ways. Firstly, it prohibited the President from suspending the right to seek legal redress for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. Thus, the right to protection against conviction for offenses (Article 20) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) remain enforceable even during an emergency. Secondly, similar to Article 358, only laws related to the emergency are shielded from challenge, excluding other laws, and only executive actions taken under such specific laws are protected.

Distinguishing Between Articles 358 and 359

1. Article 358 pertains solely to Fundamental Rights under Article 19, whereas Article 359 applies to all Fundamental Rights suspended by Presidential Order.
2. Article 358 automatically suspends Article 19 Fundamental Rights upon emergency declaration, while Article 359 grants the President the authority to suspend specified Fundamental Rights but does not enact automatic suspension.
3. Article 358 applies exclusively to External Emergencies, whereas Article 359 applies to both External and Internal Emergencies.
4. Article 358 suspends Article 19 Fundamental Rights for the entire Emergency duration, whereas Article 359 suspends Fundamental Rights enforcement for a period determined by the President, which may span the entire Emergency or a shorter duration.
5. Article 358 applies nationwide, while Article 359 may apply nationally or regionally.
6. Article 358 fully suspends Article 19, whereas Article 359 does not authorize suspension of Articles 20 and 21.
7. Article 358 permits the State to enact laws or take executive actions inconsistent with Article 19 Fundamental Rights, while Article 359 allows the State to do so only concerning the suspended Fundamental Rights specified in the Presidential Order.

Additionally, both Article 358 and Article 359 provide immunity from challenge solely for laws related to the Emergency and protect executive actions taken under such laws.

Historical Declarations of Emergency

The declaration of this type of Emergency has occurred thrice to date—in 1962, 1971, and 1975.

The initial proclamation of National Emergency arose in October 1962 due to Chinese aggression in the NEFA (North-East Frontier Agency, now Arunachal Pradesh), remaining in effect until January 1968. Therefore, no fresh proclamation was necessary during the war with Pakistan in 1965.

The second declaration of national emergency emerged in December 1971 following Pakistan’s attack. Remarkably, during the tenure of this Emergency, a third proclamation of National Emergency was issued in June 1975. Both the second and third declarations were revoked in March 1977.

The first two declarations (1962 and 1971) were justified by ‘external aggression‘, whereas the third (1975) was rooted in ‘internal disturbance‘, wherein certain individuals incited the police and armed forces against their duties and normal operations.

The 1975 Emergency declaration, predominantly internal in nature, became highly contentious, eliciting widespread criticism for its alleged misuse of powers. Subsequent to the Emergency, the Congress Party, led by Indira Gandhi, faced defeat in the 1977 Lok Sabha elections, paving the way for the Janta Party to assume power. This new government established the Shah Commission to probe the circumstances surrounding the 1975 Emergency declaration. However, the commission did not validate the Emergency imposition.

Consequently, in 1978, the 44th Amendment Act was enacted to introduce numerous safeguards against the potential misuse of Emergency provisions.

Imposition of President’s Rule

Article 355 places the responsibility on the Centre to ensure that each state’s government adheres to the Constitution’s provisions. In the event of a breakdown in constitutional mechanisms within a state, the Centre intervenes by assuming governance, a process commonly referred to as ‘President’s Rule‘. This intervention is also termed as ‘State Emergency‘ or ‘Constitutional Emergency‘.

President’s Rule can be invoked under Article 356 based on two primary grounds, outlined in Article 356 itself and Article 365:

1. Article 356 grants the President authority to issue a proclamation if it is determined that the state’s government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution. Importantly, the President can act based on the report of the state governor or independently.
2. Article 365 specifies that if a state fails to comply with directives from the Centre, the President may deem it necessary to intervene, declaring that the state’s governance is not in line with constitutional provisions.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration

A proclamation instituting President’s Rule must undergo approval from both Houses of Parliament within two months of its issuance. However, if the proclamation occurs during a period of Lok Sabha dissolution or if the dissolution happens within the two-month period without approval, then the proclamation persists until 30 days after the first session of the Lok Sabha upon its reformation, provided the Rajya Sabha endorses it in the interim.

Once ratified by both Houses of Parliament, President’s Rule endures for six months and can be extended for a maximum of three years with Parliament’s biannual consent. Nevertheless, if Lok Sabha dissolution happens within the six-month span without approving its continuation, the proclamation remains valid until 30 days after the Lok Sabha reconvenes, contingent upon Rajya Sabha endorsement in the meantime.

Every resolution sanctioning the President’s Rule proclamation or its extension requires a simple majority in either House of Parliament, meaning a majority of the members present and voting.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision to limit Parliament’s authority to extend President’s Rule beyond one year. It stipulates that after one year, extensions can only occur in six-month increments under two conditions:

1. A National Emergency proclamation must be in effect throughout India or in the state or part of the state concerned.
2. The Election Commission must certify that holding general elections for the state’s legislative assembly is not feasible due to difficulties.

The President holds the authority to revoke a President’s Rule proclamation at any time via a subsequent proclamation, which does not necessitate parliamentary approval.

Consequences of President’s Rule

During the imposition of President’s Rule in a state, the President assumes several extraordinary powers:

1. He can undertake the functions of the state government and the powers vested in the governor or any other executive authority within the state.
2. He can decree that the authority of the state legislature be exercised by the Parliament.
3. He can enact all necessary measures, including suspending constitutional provisions concerning any body or authority within the state.

As a result of President’s Rule, the President dismisses the state council of ministers, led by the chief minister. The state governor, acting on behalf of the President, manages state administration with the assistance of the chief secretary or advisors appointed by the President. This is why a proclamation under Article 356 is commonly referred to as the imposition of ‘President’s Rule’ in a state. Furthermore, the President either suspends or dissolves the state legislative assembly. Consequently:

1. Parliament may delegate the power to enact laws for the state to the President or any other designated authority.
2. Parliament, or in the case of delegation, the President or another designated authority, can enact laws assigning powers and responsibilities to the Centre or its officers and authorities.
3. The President may authorize expenditure from the state consolidated fund when the Lok Sabha is not in session, pending approval by Parliament.
4. The President may issue ordinances for the governance of the state when Parliament is not in session.

Comparison between National Emergency and President’s Rule:

National Emergency (Article 352) vs. President’s Rule (Article 356)

Certainly, here’s the comparison table with important words and keywords highlighted:

Aspect	National Emergency (Article 352)	President’s Rule (Article 356)
1. Conditions for Proclamation	Security threat due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion	Failure of state government to function according to constitutional provisions
2. Status of State Executive & Legislature	Remain intact; Centre gains concurrent powers	State executive dismissed; Legislature may be suspended or dissolved; Centre assumes powers
3. Legislative Authority	Solely Parliament	Parliament can delegate authority to President or specified authorities
4. Duration	No specified end; subject to parliamentary approval every six months	Maximum three years; then normal state machinery must be restored
5. Impact on Centre-State Relations	Affects relationship with all states	Affects relationship only with the specific state under emergency
6. Approval Requirement	Special majority in Parliament	Simple majority in Parliament
7. Impact on Fundamental Rights	Affects citizens’ fundamental rights	No effect on fundamental rights
8. Revocation	Can be initiated by Lok Sabha	Only the President can revoke
Additional Notes	Laws enacted continue beyond duration but can be altered or repealed by state legislature	Powers of concerned state high court remain unaffected; President cannot interfere

Judicial Review in the Context of Article 356

Initially, the 38th Amendment Act of 1975 solidified the President’s satisfaction in invoking Article 356 as final and beyond challenge in any court. However, the subsequent repeal of this provision by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 indicated that the President’s satisfaction is subject to judicial review.

In the landmark Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court delineated several key principles regarding the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356:

1. The imposition of President’s Rule via a presidential proclamation is open to judicial scrutiny.
2. The President’s satisfaction must be grounded in relevant material; any action based on irrelevant, extraneous, or malicious grounds can be struck down by the court.
3. The burden of proof lies with the Centre to demonstrate the existence of pertinent material justifying the imposition of President’s Rule.
4. While the court cannot assess the correctness or adequacy of the material, it can evaluate its relevance to the action.
5. If the court deems the presidential proclamation unconstitutional, it has the authority to reinstate the dismissed state government and revive the state legislative assembly if suspended or dissolved.
6. Dissolution of the state legislative assembly should only occur after Parliament has endorsed the presidential proclamation. Until such approval is granted, the President can merely suspend the assembly. Failure of Parliament to ratify the proclamation results in the reactivation of the assembly.
7. Secularism is considered a fundamental feature of the Constitution; thus, a state government engaging in anti-secular politics may face action under Article 356.
8. The determination of whether a state government has lost the confidence of the legislative assembly should occur on the assembly floor; the ministry should not be ousted until this decision is made.
9. A new political party assuming power at the Centre does not possess the authority to dismiss ministries formed by other parties in the states.
10. The power granted under Article 356 is exceptional and should be employed sparingly to address specific exigencies.

Cases of Proper and Improper Use

Drawing from the findings of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State Relations (1988), the Supreme Court, in the Bommai case (1994), outlined circumstances where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be deemed either proper or improper.

Proper instances for the imposition of President’s Rule in a state include:

1. Hung Assembly: When no party secures a majority in the assembly following general elections.
2. Declined Ministry: When the party with a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry, and the governor fails to establish a coalition ministry with a majority.
3. Ministry Resignation: When a ministry resigns after being defeated in the assembly, and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry with a majority.
4. Disregard of Constitutional Direction: When the state government disregards a constitutional directive issued by the Central government.
5. Internal Subversion: Instances where a government deliberately acts against the Constitution and the law, or incites violent revolt.
6. Physical Breakdown: When the government willfully neglects its constitutional duties, putting the state’s security at risk.

The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be deemed improper in the following scenarios:

1. Hasty Imposition: When a ministry resigns or is dismissed due to loss of majority support in the assembly, and the governor hastily recommends President’s Rule without exploring the possibility of forming an alternative ministry.
2. Governor’s Unilateral Assessment: Where the governor independently assesses the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends President’s Rule without allowing the ministry to demonstrate its majority on the assembly floor.
3. Electoral Setbacks: When the ruling party, despite enjoying majority support in the assembly, faces significant defeat in general elections to the Lok Sabha, as witnessed in instances like 1977 and 1980.
4. Internal Disturbances: Instances of internal disturbances that do not amount to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
5. Governance Issues: Instances of maladministration in the state, allegations of corruption against the ministry, or severe financial constraints faced by the state.
6. Lack of Prior Warning: Where the state government is not given adequate prior warning to rectify its actions, except in cases of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
7. Misuse of Power: When the power is utilized to resolve intra-party disputes within the ruling party or for purposes extraneous or irrelevant to those conferred by the Constitution.

Financial Emergency

Reasons for Declaration

Article 360 grants authority to the president to declare a Financial Emergency if it is ascertained that a circumstance has arisen posing a threat to the financial stability or credit of India or any of its territories.

The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 solidified the president’s satisfaction in proclaiming a Financial Emergency as absolute and immune from challenge in any court. However, this provision was later rescinded by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, indicating that the president’s satisfaction is subject to judicial review.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration

A proclamation declaring a financial emergency must receive approval from both Houses of Parliament within two months from its issuance. However, if the proclamation of a Financial Emergency is issued when the Lok Sabha is dissolved or if its dissolution occurs during the two-month period without approving the proclamation, then the proclamation remains valid until 30 days after the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has previously approved it.

Once approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Financial Emergency remains in effect indefinitely until revoked. This indicates two significant points:

1. There is no specified maximum duration for its operation.
2. Repeated parliamentary approval is unnecessary for its continuation.

A resolution approving the proclamation of a financial emergency can be passed by either House of Parliament with a simple majority, meaning a majority of the members of that house present and voting.

Criticism of the Emergency Provisions

Several members of the Constituent Assembly voiced criticism regarding the inclusion of emergency provisions in the Constitution, citing the following concerns:

1. Federal Character: Some argued that the incorporation of emergency provisions would undermine the federal character of the Constitution, leading to an overly dominant Union government.
2. Concentration of Power: Critics feared that emergency provisions would concentrate all powers, both at the Union and state levels, in the hands of the Union executive.
3. Potential Dictatorship: There were apprehensions that granting emergency powers to the President could pave the way for dictatorial tendencies.
4. Financial Autonomy: Concerns were raised about the potential nullification of the financial autonomy of states under emergency situations.
5. Erosion of Fundamental Rights: It was feared that emergency provisions would render fundamental rights meaningless, thus undermining the democratic foundations of the Constitution.

H.V. Kamath expressed his apprehension, stating: “I fear that by this single chapter we are seeking to lay the foundation of a totalitarian state, a police state, a state completely opposed to all the ideals and principles that we have held aloft during the last few decades, a State where the rights and liberties of millions of innocent men and women will be in continuous jeopardy, a State where if there be peace, it will be the peace of the grave and the void of the desert(.) It will be a day of shame and sorrow when the President makes use of these Powers having no parallel in any Constitution of the democratic countries of the world.”

The president may revoke a proclamation of Financial Emergency at any time through a subsequent proclamation. Such revocation does not require parliamentary approval.

Emergency Provisions: Key Articles

Article No.	Subject-matter
352	Proclamation of Emergency
353	Effect of Proclamation of Emergency
354	Application of provisions relating to distribution of revenues while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation
355	Duty of the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance
356	Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states
357	Exercise of legislative powers under proclamation issued under Article 356
358	Suspension of provisions of Article 19 during Emergencies
359	Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during Emergencies
359A	Application of this part to the state of Punjab (Repealed)
360	Provisions as to Financial Emergency

FAQs on Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution

1. What are Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution, and why were they included?

Emergency provisions, outlined in Part XVIII of the Constitution, empower the Central government to address extraordinary circumstances like war, external aggression, armed rebellion, or financial instability. They were included to safeguard national sovereignty, unity, integrity, democratic political system, and the Constitution itself.

2. How many types of emergencies are there in India, and what are they called?

There are three types: National Emergency (Article 352), President’s Rule or State Emergency (Article 356), and Financial Emergency (Article 360).

3. What is the process for declaring a National Emergency?

The President can declare a National Emergency if there’s a threat from war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The proclamation must have cabinet recommendation and subsequent approval from both Houses of Parliament within one month.

4. Can a National Emergency proclamation be challenged legally?

Yes, the declaration can be legally challenged if motivated by malafide intentions or based on irrelevant or absurd facts, as established by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980).

5. How long does a National Emergency last, and how can it be extended?

Initially, it lasts for six months and can be extended indefinitely with parliamentary approval every six months, provided it’s approved by both Houses with a special majority.

6. What happens if the Lok Sabha is dissolved during a National Emergency?

If dissolved, the Emergency continues until 30 days after the reconstitution of the Lok Sabha, provided the Rajya Sabha has already approved it.

7. Who has the authority to revoke a National Emergency, and is parliamentary approval required?

The President can revoke it at any time through a subsequent proclamation, without needing parliamentary approval. However, if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving the Emergency, the President must revoke it.

8. What safeguards were introduced to prevent unilateral decisions in declaring a National Emergency?

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced measures such as requiring cabinet recommendation, parliamentary approval within one month, and the President’s obligation to revoke the Emergency if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving it.

9. How does a National Emergency affect Centre–State Relations?

It grants the Centre extensive powers over states in executive, legislative, and financial matters, effectively placing states under its control without suspension.

10. What financial modifications can be made during a National Emergency?

The President can modify the distribution of revenues between the Centre and states, including reducing or canceling transfers from the Centre to the states, until the end of the financial year in which the Emergency concludes. These modifications must be presented before both Houses of Parliament.

For Complete Polity Click Here.

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE