INTRODUCTION

The meaning of “Emergency” under the Constitution is different from its meaning in
dictionary. Emergency in Constitution means abnormal situation which calls for urgent
remedial action, whereas the dictionary meaning of emergency that it is a situation when it
poses of immediate risk.
It is a responsibility of government to prepare for all the crisis with all the measures require
to
safeguard its people. As India being a democratic nation, The President is given the
authority
to proclaim emergency at the time of severe crisis. The President can proclaim emergency
when he is satisfied after advice and discussion with the Council of Ministers. Emergency
provisions are contained in Part XVIII of the Constitution, from Articles 352 to 360. Whenever
there is a threat in the constitutional machinery or threat to the national or financial
creditability
of India, then The President of India can proclaim emergency in any part of India

.
During an Emergency, the Central government becomes all powerful and the states go into
the
total control of the Centre. It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a formal
amendment of the Constitution. This kind of transformation of the political system from
federal
during normal times to unitary during Emergency is a unique feature of the Indian
Constitution.
In this context, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar observed in the Constituent Assembly that
:
“All federal systems including American are placed in a tight mould of federalism. No
matter what the circumstances, it cannot change its form and shape. It can never be unitary.
On the other hand, the Constitution of India can be both unitary as well as federal according
to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a
federal
system. But in times of Emergency, it is so designed as to make it work as though it was a
unitary system.
The emergency in nation is declared in procedure. During emergency all the fundamental
right
of a citizen or an individual are suspended except Art.20 and 21where Art.20 talks about the
protection in respect of convection in certain offences and Art.21 talks about the right to life
and personal liberty in which every individual from its birth had a right to live meaningful and
dignified life. The Subjective Satisfaction of the president is the satisfaction that the security
of
India is threatened or there are chances of its threatened by was or internal aggression or
armed
rebellion and this cannot be change in the court of law, even when president had been
actuated
mala fides. The executive is empowered with very great powers by the emergency
provisions.
Certain members of the constitution assembly had expressed the view that the executive
may
misuse the emergency powers.
In this context, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out that the Constitution itself provides with the
safeguards against the misuse of the emergency powers. -
• Firstly, it is to be exercised on the advice of the representatives of the people or the
Council of Ministers.
• Secondly, it must be laid in front of Parliament and cannot enforce for more than one
month without its approval.
If we talk about the National emergencies in India, third national emergency was not
declared at right time and declared not for the right purpose. Except the third national
emergency, the other two were declared at right and for the right purpose. Emergency
declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975 has resultant as the darkest period in Indian history from
1975 to 1977 of 21 months.
At the time of crisis, the democratic nation like India cannot deal with them in its normal
process, therefore the president is given the authority for the declaration of emergency and
for
immediate actions.

Types of Emergencies

In the Constitution there are three types of emergency provision given there

1. An emergency due to war, external aggression or armed rebellion

(Article 352).
This is popularly known as ‘National Emergency’. However, the Constitution employs the
expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote an emergency of this type.
2. An Emergency due to the failure of the constitutional machinery in the states (Article
356). This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’. It is also known by two other
names– ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
3. Financial Emergency due to a threat to the financial stability or credit of India (Article
360)
NATIONAL EMERGENCY

Art.352 of the Indian Constitution provides that if the President is satisfied that a grave
emergency exists whereby the security of India or any part of India is threatened, either by
war
or external aggression or armed rebellion, he may make a Proclamation of Emergency in the
respect of the whole of India or any part of India as may be specified in the Proclamation.
The
Proclamation of Emergency made under clause (1) may be varied or revoked by the
President
by a subsequent Proclamation [Cl. (2)].
Grounds of Declaration
The President can issue different proclamations on grounds of war, external aggression,
armed
rebellion6
, or imminent danger thereof, whether or not there is a proclamation already issued
by him and such proclamation is in operation. This provision was added by the 38th
Amendment Act of 1975.
• When a national emergency is declared on the ground of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’,
it is known as ‘External Emergency’. On the other hand,
• When it is declared on the ground of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal
Emergency’.
If India and Pakistan openly accept that they will use armed forces against each other
is simply war.
➢ If there is no formal declaration that there will be armed forces used against a country
is External aggression.
➢ And if because of these two grounds an emergency is proclaimed as an external
emergency.
Under the Art.352 of the Indian Constitution, it is also considered that the president can
declare
a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or external aggression or
armed
rebellion, if he is satisfied that there is an imminent danger.
Huge influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh resulting periodic clashes between the
citizens
of India and these migrants resulting into loss of life and property has been held to be
external
aggression8
.
A proclamation of national emergency may be applicable to the entire country or only a part
of it. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 enabled the president to limit the operation of a
National Emergency to a specified part of India.
Originally, the Constitution mentioned ‘internal disturbance’ as the third ground for the
proclamation of a National Emergency, but the expression was too vague and had a wider
connotation. Hence, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 substituted the words ‘armed
rebellion’
for ‘internal disturbance’. Thus, it is no longer possible to declare a National Emergency on
the ground of ‘internal disturbance’ as was done in 1975 by the Congress government
headed
by Indira Gandhi.
Parliamentary Approval and Duration

The proclamation of Emergency must be approved by both the Houses of Parliament within
one month from the date of its issue. Originally, the period allowed for approval by the
Parliament was two months, but was reduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.
However,
if the proclamation of emergency is issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has been dissolved
or
the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during the period of one month without
approving
the proclamation, then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok
Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime approved it.
If approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the emergency continues for six months, and
can be extended to an indefinite period with an approval of the Parliament for every six
months.
This provision for periodical parliamentary approval was also added by the 44th Amendment
Act of 1978. Before that, the emergency, once approved by the Parliament, could remain in
operation as long as the Executive (cabinet) desired. However, if the dissolution of the Lok
Sabha takes place during the period of six months without approving the further continuance
of Emergency, then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok
Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the mean-time approved its
continuation.
Every resolution approving the proclamation of emergency or its continuance must be
passed
by either House of Parliament by a special majority, that is,
(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
A special majority provision was introduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Previously,
such a resolution could be passed by a simple majority of the Parliament.

Revocation of Proclamation

A proclamation of emergency may be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent

proclamation. Such a proclamation does not require parliamentary approval.
Further, the President must revoke a proclamation if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution
disapproving of its continuation. Again, this safeguard was introduced by the 44th
Amendment
Act of 1978. Before the amendment, a proclamation could be revoked by the president on
his
and the Lok Sabha had no control in this regard.
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 also provided that, where one-tenth of the total number of
members of the Lok Sabha give a written notice to the Speaker (or to the president if the
House
is not in session), a special sitting of the House should be held within 14 days for the
purpose
of considering a resolution disapproving the continuation of the proclamation.
A resolution of disapproval is different from a resolution approving the continuation of a
proclamation in the following two respects:
1. The first one is required to be passed by the Lok Sabha only, while the second one needs
to
be passed by the both Houses of Parliament.
2. The first one is to be adopted by a simple majority only, while the second one needs to be
adopted by a special majority
Effects of National Emergency
A proclamation of Emergency has drastic and wide-ranging effects on the political system.
These consequences can be grouped into three categories:
1. Effect on the Centre-state relations,
2. Effect on the life of the Lok Sabha and State assembly, and
3. Effect on Fundamental Rights.
#Effect on the Centre-State Relations
While a proclamation of Emergency is in force, the normal fabric of the Centre-state relations
undergoes a basic change. This can be studied under three heads, namely, executive,
legislative and financial.
Executive
During a national emergency, the executive power of the Centre extends to directing any
state
regarding the manner in which its executive power is to be exercised. In normal times, the
Centre can give executive directions to a state only on certain specified matters. However,
during a national emergency, the Centre becomes entitled to give executive directions to a
state on ‘any’ matter. Thus, the state governments are brought under the complete control of
the Centre, though they are not suspended.
Legislative
During a national emergency, the Parliament becomes empowered to make laws on any
subject mentioned in the State List. Although the legislative power of a state legislature is not
suspended, it becomes subject to the overriding power of the Parliament. Thus, the normal
distribution of the legislative powers between the Centre and states is suspended, though
the
state Legislatures are not suspended. In brief, the Constitution becomes unitary rather than
federal.

The laws made by Parliament on the state subjects during a National Emergency become
inoperative six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.
Notably, while a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the President can issue
ordinances on the state subjects also, if the Parliament is not in session.
Further, the Parliament can confer powers and impose duties upon the Centre or its officers
and authorities in respect of matters outside the Union List, in order to carry out the laws
made by it under its extended jurisdiction as a result of the proclamation of a National
Emergency.
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 provided that the two consequences mentioned above
(executive and legislative) extends not only to a state where the Emergency is in operation
but also to any other state.
Financial
While a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the President can modify the
constitutional distribution of revenues between the centre and the states. This means that
the
president can either reduce or cancel the transfer of finances from Centre to the states. Such
modification continues till the end of the financial year in which the Emergency ceases to
operate. Also, every such order of the President has to be laid before both the Houses of
Parliament.
#Effect on the Life of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly
While a proclamation of National Emergency is in operation, the life of the Lok Sabha may
be extended beyond its normal term (five years) by a law of Parliament for one year at a time
(for any length of time). However, this extension cannot continue beyond a period of six
months after the emergency has ceased to operate. For example, the term of the Fifth Lok
Sabha (1971–1977) was extended two times by one year at a time
.
Similarly, the Parliament may extend the normal tenure of a state legislative assembly (five
years) by one year each time (for any length of time) during a national emergency, subject to
a maximum period of six months after the Emergency has ceased to operate.

#Effect on the Fundamental Rights

Articles 358 and 359 describe the effect of a National Emergency on Fundamental Rights.
Article 358 deals with the suspension of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19,
while Article 359 deals with the suspension of other Fundamental Rights (except those
guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21). These two provisions are explained below:
Suspension of Fundamental Rights Under Art.19
According to Article 358, when a proclamation of national emergency is made, the six
Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are automatically suspended. No separate order for
their
suspension is required.
While a proclamation of national emergency is in operation, the state is freed from the
restrictions imposed by Article 19. In other words, the state can make any law or can take
any
executive action abridging or taking away the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Art.19.
Any such law or executive action cannot be challenged on the ground that they are
inconsistent with the six Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19. When the National
Emergency ceases to operate, Article 19 automatically revives and comes into force. Any
law
made during Emergency, to the extent of inconsistency with Article 19, ceases to have effect.
However, no remedy lies for anything done during the Emergency even after the Emergency

expires. This means that the legislative and executive actions taken during the emergency
cannot be challenged even after the Emergency ceases to operate.
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article 358 in two ways. Firstly, the
six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 can be suspended only when the National
Emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression and not on the ground of
armed rebellion. Secondly, only those laws which are related with the Emergency are
protected from being challenged and no other laws. Also, the executive action taken only
under such a law is protected.
National Emergencies in India

# Emergency 1 : 1962

During the War with China, the first emergency was proclaimed and lasted for six years
between October 1962 and January 1968. The battle against China concluded on 21
October
1962, but another war against Pakistan only began after the emergency. In the end, the
Tashkent

deal was signed after international pressure and in January the then government dropped
the
emergency.

# Emergency 2 : 1971

The second emergency declaration was due to the war between India and Pakistan. Three
acts
were performed during that time. Maintenance of SA, Coffee POS Act, and In order to avoid
arrest
It was decided to retain the Govt Protection of the Rule. However, these three actions
were extensively grossly overused, and numerous convictions, jail shootings, and gatherings
were observed this time. The war with Pakistan came to an end, but the emergency
persisted,
and before the second emergency was revoked, the 3rd emergency was declared.

#Emergency 3 : 1975

The third emergency has been proclaimed due to internal unrest and this is India’s most
contentious emergency. The polls at which the court considered Smt. Indira Gandhi was
barred
from public service for six years to be engaged in unethical practices it was held in the
Allahabad High Court.
She had brought the judgment to the Supreme court, but the court had been on holiday at
that
moment. On 25 June 1975, the Historical day, Smt. Indira Gandhi wrote to then-Honourable
President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed10 a message to declare an emergency, despite the
approval of
the members of the cabinet. The much more stringent and compressed emergency was this
emergency. On 23 March 1977, it was withdrawn.
In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors
., the legitimacy of the
president’s motivation and determination through Article 351 is not impeded by judicial
review. However, the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to investigating is not whether the
restrictions of the Constitution were met. It will decide whether or not the President’s
happiness
is true. It is not at all happiness, where fulfilment is founded on mistrust, irony, or irrelevance.

STATE EMERGENCY

Article 356 talks about the failure of constitutional machinery in state which is also known as
the President’s rule. If the president on Governor’s report or otherwise is satisfied that the
situation has arisen such that the government can’t be carried in accordance with the
constitutional provisions then, he may issue State emergency.
President can declare emergency either by the report of Governor or he himself is satisfied
that
the situation is such that the emergency has to be imposed. But at times, President may
declare
emergency when a report is not received from the governor. This was done by President
Venkataraman in 1991 in the state of Tamil Nadu even though he didn’t receive a report from
the governor.
After the 42th Amendment of the constitution the state emergency was made immune from
judicial review. But later in the 44th Amendment the legality of President’s rule could be
challenged.
The proclamation relating to state emergency shall be laid before each House of Parliament
unless both Houses approve it, the emergency shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a
period of two months. Further the duration of proclamation can be extended to 6 months
each
time by both Houses of Parliament passing resolution approving its continuance. Beyond the
period of a year the proclamation can only be continued if the Election Commission certifies
that it is not possible to hold an election in the state or that territory.
The consequences of state emergency are-
• The president assumes all the executive power of the state himself. The state
administration runs by him or any person appointed by him generally the Governor.
• During such proclamation, the state assembly is either dissolved or suspended. But the
MLA’s do not lose their membership of the Assembly.
• Parliament makes laws regarding the state list. The parliament only passes the budget
for the state.
• The High court of the state functions independently.
• The president can also proclaim ordinances in the state.
During the state emergency the Union government has absolute control over the state
except the judiciary. If one looks at the past instances of state emergency in the country,
three common grounds emerge that have been invoked under Art.356- breakdown of law
and order,
political instability, corruption and maladministration.
In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case) it was held that
the presidential proclamation dissolving state assembly in Bihar under Art.356 was
unconstitutional on extraneous and irrelevant ground. The court said that the state governor
misled the centre in recommending dissolution of state assembly.
In the historic case of S.R Bommai v. Union of India, a full bench of the Karnataka High
court produced different opinion about the imposition of the President’s rule in Karnataka,
while in other states the court held that it was in violation of the constitution and would have
restored the original position.
Grounds of Imposition
Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to ensure that the government of every state is
carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is this duty in the performance of
which the Centre takes over the government of a state under Article 356 in case of failure of
constitutional machinery in the state. This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’. It is also
known as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
The President’s Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on two grounds–one mentioned in
Article 356 itself and another in Article 365:
1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if he is satisfied that a
situation
has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution. Notably, the president can act either on a report of the
governor
of the state or otherwise too (i.e., even without the governor’s report).
2. Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give effect to any direction
from the Centre, it will be lawful for the president to hold that a situation has arisen in which
the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.

This image shows the misuse of the state emergency provision how many time emergency
imposed on the state and which year.

A proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be approved by both the Houses of

Parliament
within two months from the date of its issue. However, if the proclamation of President’s Rule
is issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the dissolution of the Lok
Sabha
takes place during the period of two months without approving the proclamation, then the
proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after its
reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha approves it in the meantime.
If approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the President’s Rule continues for six
months15
.
It can be extended for a maximum period of three years with the approval of the Parliament,
every six months. However, if the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during the period
of six months without approving the further continuation of the President’s Rule, then the
proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after its
reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime approved its continuance.
Every resolution approving the proclamation of President’s Rule or its continuation can be
passed by either House of Parliament only by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the
members of that House present and voting.
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision to put restraint on the power of
Parliament to extend a proclamation of President’s Rule beyond one year. Thus, it provided
that, beyond one year, the President’s Rule can be extended by six months at a time only
when
the following two conditions are fulfilled:
1. a proclamation of National Emergency should be in operation in the whole of India, or in
the whole or any part of the state; and
2. the Election Commission must certify that the general elections to the legislative assembly
of the concerned state cannot be held on account of difficulties. A proclamation of
President’s
Rule may be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent proclamation. Such a
proclamation does not require the parliamentary approval

FINANCIAL EMERGENCY
Grounds of Declaration
Article 360 empowers the president to proclaim a Financial Emergency if he is satisfied that
a
situation has arisen due to which the financial stability or credit of India or any part of its
territory is threatened.
The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the president in declaring a
Financial Emergency final and conclusive and not questionable in any court on any ground.
But this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 implying
that the satisfaction of the president is not beyond judicial review.
Parliamentary Approval and Duration
A proclamation declaring financial emergency must be approved by both the Houses of
Parliament within two months from the date of its issue. However, if the proclamation of
Financial Emergency is issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the
dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during the period of two months without approving
the proclamation, then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the
Lok Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime approved
it.
Once approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the Financial Emergency continues
indefinitely till it is revoked. This implies two things:
1. there is no maximum period prescribed for its operation; and
2. repeated parliamentary approval is not required for its continuation.
A resolution approving the proclamation of financial emergency can be passed by either
House of Parliament only by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of that
house present and voting
A proclamation of Financial Emergency may be revoked by the president at any time by a
subsequent proclamation. Such a proclamation does not require the parliamentary approval.
 CRITICISM OF EMERGENCY PROVISIONS

Some members of the Constituent Assembly criticised the incorporation of emergency

provisions in the Constitution on the following grounds:
1. The federal character of the Constitution will be destroyed and the Union will become all
powerful.
2. The powers of the State–both the Union and the units–will entirely be concentrated in the
hands of the Union executive.
3. The President will become a dictator.
4. The financial autonomy of the state will be nullified.
5. Fundamental rights will become meaningless and, as a result, the democratic foundations
of
the Constitution will be destroyed.
Thus, H.V. Kamath observed: ‘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’19
.
K.T. Shah described them as: ‘A chapter of reaction and retrogression. (. . .) I find one
cannot
but notice two distinct currents of thought underlying and influencing throughout the
provisions of this chapter:
(a) to arm the Centre with special powers against the units and
(b) to arm the government against the people . . . Looking at all the provisions of this chapter
particularly and scrutinising the powers that have been given in almost every article, it seems
To me, the name only of liberty or democracy will remain under the Constitution’.
H.N. Kunzru opined that ‘the emergency financial provisions pose a serious threat to the
financial autonomy of the States.’
T.T. Krishnamachari feared that ‘by means of these provisions the President and the
Executive would be exercising a form of constitutional dictatorship’
.
However, there were also protagonists of the emergency provisions in the Constituent
Assembly. Thus, Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar labelled them as ‘the very life-breath of the
Constitution’. Mahabir Tyagi opined that they would work as a ‘safety-valve’ and thereby help
in the maintenance of the Constitution
.
While defending the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
also accepted the possibility of their misuse. He observed, ‘I do not altogether deny that
there
is a possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes”
 CONCLUSION
The Indian constitution was formed and framed after intensive studies, extensive studies and
long deliberations. The most important and crucial provision of emergency punctually placed
with caution and care. Over the years the provisions resulted in inadequacy and giving the
rise to a view that the provisions are in practice, but as failure. India can do well only if it is
providing the safeguards against the abuse of emergency power. When we deal with the
emergency provisions, then it is easy to see the purpose for which the provisions are
available
in the Indian constitution. But when we study for the same then we realize, that even if these
provisions are made for the security of India and protection of fundamental rights of the
individual, these provisions themselves gives a lot of drastic discretional powers to the
executive. The execution to the powers to the executive turns the federal structure in to the
unitary. We still think to brought the check and balance system which does not exist at the
time of third national emergency in 1975 to ensure the favourable use of the power by the
ruling party and executive. Our constitution provides for the execution of such powers due to
which the fundamental rights of the individual may infringe at the time of emergency, third
national emergency in 1975 is declared due to internal disturbances (later known as armed
rebellion26) in which the fundamental rights of many individuals were violated. The
researcher suggests some control mechanism for the limitation of power within the purview
of the Indian constitution.