.png)
Emergency Provisions and Judicial Review: Safeguarding Democracy in Crisis
- The Law Gurukul
- Jul 3
- 2 min read
Introduction
The Indian Constitution provides emergency provisions (Articles 352-360) to protect the nation during grave crises—whether war, internal rebellion, or financial instability. However, unchecked emergency powers can threaten democracy. This is where judicial review acts as a critical check, ensuring that emergency declarations are lawful and justified. This blog examines the types of emergencies, their historical misuse, and how judicial review safeguards constitutional rights.
Types of Emergencies Under the Indian Constitution
The Constitution envisions three kinds of emergencies:
1. National Emergency (Article 352)
Grounds: War, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
Effects:
Central government gains overriding powers over states.
Fundamental Rights (except Articles 20-21) can be suspended.
Parliament can make laws on State List subjects.
2. State Emergency (President’s Rule) (Article 356)
Grounds: Failure of constitutional machinery in a state.
Effects:
State government is dismissed; Governor rules on behalf of the President.
State Assembly may be dissolved or suspended.
3. Financial Emergency (Article 360)
Grounds: Threat to India’s financial stability.
Effects:
Salary cuts for government officials.
Central control over state financial matters.
Historical Misuse of Emergency Powers
1. The 1975 National Emergency (Indira Gandhi Government)
Declared on grounds of "internal disturbance."
Major Impacts:
Fundamental Rights (including free speech) were suspended.
Press censorship, political arrests (like JP Narayan, George Fernandes).
42nd Amendment expanded emergency powers, reducing judicial oversight.
2. Arbitrary Use of President’s Rule
Before the S.R. Bommai Case (1994), Article 356 was frequently misused to dismiss opposition-led state governments.
Example: In the 1980s, Congress governments dismissed several state governments for political reasons.
Judicial Review: The Guardian Against Emergency Excesses
The judiciary acts as a check on emergency powers through judicial review, ensuring:
Proportionality – The emergency must match the threat.
Constitutional Validity – The President’s satisfaction must be based on valid material.
Protection of Basic Rights – Even during emergencies, core rights (like life and personal liberty under Article 21) cannot be fully suspended.
Landmark Cases Shaping Emergency Jurisprudence
Case | Key Ruling |
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) | (Controversial) Held that during an emergency, even habeas corpus petitions could be suspended. Later criticized. |
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) | President’s Rule must be based on objective material; subject to judicial review. |
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) | Limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution during emergencies. |
Reforms & Current Safeguards
After the 1975 Emergency, several safeguards were introduced:
44th Amendment (1978)
Replaced "internal disturbance" with "armed rebellion" (stricter criteria).
Made judicial review applicable even during emergencies.
Required Parliamentary approval within 1 month (previously 2 months).
S.R. Bommai Guidelines
President’s Rule cannot be imposed without substantial evidence.
Courts can revive a dissolved Assembly if the proclamation is invalid.
Conclusion: Balancing Power & Accountability
Emergency provisions are necessary for national security but must not become tools for authoritarianism. Judicial review ensures that emergencies are legal, necessary, and temporary. While India has strengthened safeguards post-1975, continued vigilance is essential to prevent misuse.
Do you think India’s emergency provisions are still prone to misuse? Should judicial review be stronger? Share your thoughts below!
Comments