Significant provisions regarding the Emergency Powers and their judicial review.

Emergency Powers and Judicial Review | Indian Constitution | OPSC Mains

Introduction: The Emergency Provisions under Part XVIII (Articles 352–360) of the Indian Constitution empower the Union to assume extraordinary authority during crises. While intended to safeguard national unity and security, their misuse during the 1975–77 Emergency highlighted the need for judicial review and constitutional safeguards.

Body: There are three types of emergencies:

  • National Emergency (Article 352): Proclaimed on grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. It converts the federal system into a unitary structure and allows suspension of certain Fundamental Rights.
  • State Emergency / President’s Rule (Article 356): Imposed when constitutional machinery fails in a State.
  • Financial Emergency (Article 360): Declared in case of financial instability.

During the 1975 Emergency, in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Supreme Court held that even the Right to Life (Article 21) could be suspended, reflecting a restrictive approach. However, this judgment was widely criticized and later overruled.

The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) introduced safeguards: written advice of the Cabinet for proclamation, mandatory parliamentary approval by special majority, and protection of Articles 20 and 21 even during Emergency.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, and federalism forms part of the Basic Structure. This marked a major constitutional safeguard against arbitrary use of Article 356.

Conclusion: Emergency provisions are necessary to protect national integrity, but unchecked power can threaten democracy. Judicial review and constitutional amendments have transformed these provisions into balanced mechanisms, ensuring that extraordinary powers remain accountable and consistent with the rule of law.