Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• The Allahabad High Court’s landmark verdict on June 12, 1975, nullified the 1971 Lok Sabha election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on grounds of electoral malpractice. This decision precipitated the proclamation of National Emergency on June 25, 1975, marking a critical juncture in India’s constitutional history.

Constitutional Framework: Article 352

• Under Article 352 of the Constitution, a National Emergency can be proclaimed by the President if the security of India or any part thereof is threatened by:
• War or
• External Aggression (collectively termed as External Emergency) or
• Armed Rebellion (Internal Emergency, substituted from “internal disturbance” by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978).

Procedure and Safeguards

• Written Cabinet Advice (44th CAA, 1978)
• The President can proclaim Emergency only upon a written recommendation by the Union Council of Ministers, thereby eliminating unilateral discretion.
• Parliamentary Approval
• Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month of proclamation.
• If the Lok Sabha is dissolved, Emergency continues until 30 days after reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has approved it in the meantime.
• Once approved, it continues for six months and may be extended indefinitely, subject to parliamentary reapproval every six months.
• Special Majority Requirement

Each House must pass the resolution by a special majority:

• A majority of the total membership, and
• Not less than two-thirds of members present and voting.
• Revocation Mechanism
• The President may revoke Emergency at any time through a fresh proclamation.
• Additionally, Lok Sabha can force revocation by passing a resolution disapproving continuation, a safeguard introduced by the 44th Amendment.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

• Article 358: Suspension of Article 19
• Applies only in case of War or External Aggression (not Armed Rebellion).
• Rights under Article 19 are automatically suspended for the duration of Emergency without requiring a separate Presidential order.
• Article 359: Suspension of Enforcement of Other Fundamental Rights
• The President may issue a specific order suspending enforcement (not the existence) of other Fundamental Rights, except Articles 20 and 21 (post-44th Amendment).
• Requires subsequent parliamentary approval.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Morality

• In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court affirmed that:
• The proclamation of Emergency is subject to judicial review.
• Grounds like mala fide intent, irrelevant considerations, or perversity can render it invalid.
• The Court reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine as a constitutional safeguard against executive overreach.

The Emergency of 1975–77: A Democratic Breakdown

• The Emergency from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977, is widely regarded as a constitutional low point due to:
• Curtailment of civil liberties: Suspension of freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
• Press censorship and suppression of dissent.
• Preventive detentions under laws like MISA, with thousands jailed without trial.
• 39th Amendment insulated the PM’s election from judicial scrutiny.
• Executive over-centralization and erosion of judicial independence.

Post-Emergency Reforms: Strengthening Democracy

• 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978
• Replaced “internal disturbance” with “armed rebellion” for Emergency grounds.
• Ensured that Articles 20 and 21 (right to life and protection from retrospective penal laws) remain enforceable even during Emergency.
• Introduced mandatory Cabinet recommendation and special majority approval for Emergency.

Judicial Safeguards

• Proclamation and actions under Emergency are not immune from judicial scrutiny.
• Reinforcement of constitutional supremacy and basic structure doctrine.

Conclusion

• The experience of the 1975 Emergency underscores the fragility of democratic institutions in the absence of robust constitutional checks. While the 44th Amendment fortified procedural safeguards and protected core rights, vigilant institutions, an informed citizenry, and a committed judiciary remain essential to preserving India’s democratic ethos.