Background

Declaring a state of emergency is a very serious matter. It violates the normal structure of the Constitution and affects the rights of the people; therefore, such a declaration should only be made under special circumstances, not just to keep an unpopular government in power. This happened in June 1975, when a state of emergency was declared without good reason due to internal disturbance. The 1975 manifesto originated from internal disturbance, and it proved to be the most controversial due to large-scale violations of basic human rights; a strict news censorship system was introduced. Many people were taken preventive detention for no reason. In light of these changes, the 44th Amendment Act made it extremely difficult to replicate the situation in 1975, if not impossible.

The 44th Amendment

The 44th amendment considerably altered the emergency provisions of the Constitution to confirm that it’s not abused by the executive as done by Ms. Indira Nehru Gandhi in 1975.  It additionally fixed bound changes that were done by 42nd amendment. the subsequent are small print of this amendment –

1. “Armed rebellion” replaced “Internal disturbance”, underneath art 352.

2. The choice of proclamation of emergency should be communicated by the cabinet in writing.

3. Proclamation of emergency must be by the houses at intervals one month.

4. To continue emergency, it should be re-approved by the houses each six month.

5. Emergency will be revoked by passing resolution to it impact by an easy majority of the houses present and voting. 1/10 of the members of a house will move such a resolution.

6. Article 358 provides that Article 19 will be suspended solely upon war or external aggression and not upon armed rebellion. Further, every such law that transgresses Article 19 must recite that it’s connected to Article 358. All different laws can still be challenged if they violate Article 19.

7. Article 359, provides, suspension of the correct to manoeuvre courts for violation of part III won’t embrace Articles 20 and 21.

8. Reversed back the term of Lok Sabha from six to five years.

A. Proclamation under Article 352

Article 352(1) provides that the president may make a proclamation of emergency if he is ‘satisfied’ on the existence of a threat to the safety of India, or any half thereof. Therefore, the question of whether the President’s satisfaction is protected by justice arises from time to time.

The position on this issue is in Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal. The Supreme Court of West Bengal ruled that this is a political issue, not a judicial issue. Also, to create the position clearer on this matter the 38th amendment to the constitution imposed clause 5 to the Article 352 expressing that the ‘satisfaction’ of the president as utilized in Article 352(1) and (3) is to mean “final and conclusive” and “could not be challenged in any court of law”.

However, in a while, when Indian democracy saw the abuse of those powers throughout the emergency of the 1975, by the 44th amendment later on the availability of Article 352(5) inserted by the 38th amendment to the constitution was revoked.  Therefore, the current position on this matter is that, it’s up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not it’ll treat the ‘satisfaction’ of the president to issue a proclamation of emergency, or to vary it or to continue it, as ‘final’ and ‘non-justiciable’, or as being subject to review on some

Also, it is to note that Justice Bhagwati has discovered within the case of Minerva Mills that “whether the precedent n proclaiming the emergency under Article 352 had applied his mind or whether he acted outside his powers or acted mala fide in proclaiming the emergency could not be excluded from the scope of judicial review.”

B. Proclamation under Article 356

The possibility of judicial review of a Proclamation under Article 356 is indisputable because the powers under Article 356 (1) are conditional. When the court exercises the power of judicial review, it has the right to review whether the conditions are met. So the altercation circles the reach of judicial review. From the judgment held in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India and the S. R. Bommai case, it can be held there cannot be a uniform rule relevant to all instances. This must depend on the subject, the nature of the law and other factors. However, whenever possible, the existence of contentment can be questioned the ground that it is ‘mala fides’ or ‘based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant grounds’. In matters related to Article 356, the importance of judicial review lies in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, the Supreme Court ruled that it can repeal the previous law, a Proclamation of emergency is beyond the constitution, simply because it was in effect at the time.

The judicial amendment to the proclamation pursuant to Article 356(1), was first made in Rajasthan v. Union of India a seven-bench constitutional bench rejected the petition. It also supports the centre’s decision to dissolve the three assemblies in accordance with Article 356 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Minerva Mills and Others v. Union of India and Others, dwelt appreciably on its power to observe the validity of a Proclamation of Emergency issued through the President. The Supreme Court on this count discovered, inter alia, that it need to not hesitate to carry out its constitutional obligation simply as it entails considering political issues. At the same time, it needs to limit itself to inspecting whether or not the constitutional necessities of Article 352 were found in the assertion of the Proclamation and it needs to not move into the sufficiency of the data and occasions of the presidential pleasure in the lifestyles of a scenario of an emergency.

Therefore, we can confidently conclude that although under Article 356, Presidential Proclamation is limited, it still requires judicial review. The recent case determined the scope of judicial review of the presidential announcement, inflicting “presidential rules” on the states, and ensured the president’s subjectively satisfactory legal status is S.R. Bomai’s v. Union of India is a milestone in the history of India’s constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court boldly set the paradigm and restrictions applicable to Article 356. According to Soli Sorabji, a well-known Indian lawyer and former Attorney General, “After the Supreme Court’s judgment in the S. R. Bommai case, it is well settled that Article 356 is an extreme power and is to be used as a last resort in cases where it is manifest that there is an impasse and the constitutional machinery in a State has collapsed”.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge