INTRODUCTION

The Emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution, encapsulated in Articles 352 to 360, empower the central government to take extraordinary measures during severe crises, such as external aggression, armed rebellion, or financial instability. These provisions, introduced to ensure national security and stability, allow for the suspension of fundamental rights and the centralization of power. However, their invocation during the 1975-77 Emergency period remains a contentious chapter in India's democratic history, highlighting the delicate balance between state authority and civil liberties.

Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution

• Article 352: Proclamation of Emergency

• Allows the President to declare a national emergency due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.

• Requires written advice from the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

• Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month.

• Article 353: Effect of Proclamation of Emergency

• Article 354: Application of Provisions Relating to Distribution of Revenues

• Article 355: Duty of the Union to Protect States

• Article 356: State Emergency (President's Rule)

• Allows the President to assume control of a state if its governance fails per the Constitution.

• Requires Parliament's approval within two months.

• Article 357: Exercise of Legislative Powers under Proclamation

• Article 358: Suspension of Provisions of Article 19

• Suspends the freedoms under Article 19 during a national emergency, except for internal emergencies.

• Article 359: Suspension of the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

• Empowers the President to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during an emergency, except for Articles 20 and 21.

• Article 360: Financial Emergency

• Allows the President to declare a financial emergency if the financial stability or credit of India is threatened.

• Requires approval by both Houses of Parliament within two months.

History

India has experienced three national emergencies: the first in 1962 during the Sino-Indian War, the second in 1971 due to the Indo-Pakistani War, and the most controversial third in 1975, declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi citing internal disturbances, which significantly impacted the country's democratic fabric.

The Third Emergency (1975-1977):

• Background: The Emergency in India was declared on June 25, 1975, by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, citing internal disturbances as the reason.

• Proclamation: President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed issued the proclamation under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, which gave the Prime Minister authority to rule by decree, suspending elections and civil liberties.

• Political Context: The declaration followed a period of political unrest, widespread protests, and legal challenges to Indira Gandhi's election victory, including a significant judgement by the Allahabad High Court.

• Key Features: The Emergency saw the suspension of fundamental rights, press censorship, and the arrest of opposition leaders and activists.

• Duration: The Emergency lasted for 21 months, from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977.

• Impact on Society: The period was marked by forced sterilisation campaigns, slum demolition drives, and a clampdown on political dissent and freedom of speech.

• 1977 General Elections: The Emergency ended when Indira Gandhi called for general elections in March 1977. The elections resulted in a massive defeat for the Congress party, leading to the first non-Congress government in India led by the Janata Party.

• Aftermath: The period of the Emergency left a lasting impact on Indian politics, leading to greater awareness and importance of safeguarding democratic institutions and civil liberties.

Lessons 

• Vigilance Against Authoritarianism: The Emergency period highlighted the need for constant vigilance to prevent the abuse of executive power and to safeguard democratic institutions and civil liberties.

• Dangers of Personality Cults: The Emergency period highlighted the risks of an overemphasis on personality cults, which can lead to overconfidence within the leadership's inner circle and arrogance among its followers.

• Judicial Independence: It underscored the importance of an independent judiciary that can act as a check on executive overreach and protect citizens' rights against arbitrary actions.

• Role of Free Press: The suppression of the press during the Emergency demonstrated the necessity of a free and independent media as a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring accountability and transparency.

• Civil Society Engagement: The resistance by civil society groups during the Emergency emphasised the power and importance of active citizen engagement and advocacy in preserving democratic norms.

• Democratic Leadership Preference: The electorate's preference for democratic leadership over centralised control became evident, teaching political leaders never to take the people's support for granted.

• Purpose of Power: The Emergency taught that power is merely a tool to achieve specific goals and should not be regarded as an end in itself. It is meant to facilitate broader objectives and improvements rather than being pursued for its own sake.

• Constitutional Safeguards: The period led to subsequent legal and constitutional reforms aimed at strengthening safeguards against potential misuse of Emergency provisions, thereby reinforcing the resilience of India's democratic framework.

Comparison with current scenario

Do we have an undeclared emergency?

For those who experienced the Emergency, the current environment of fear, suppression, and curtailment of civil liberties draws parallels, albeit with more sophisticated and less overt methods of control.

• Legislative Pressure: Allegations of undermining parliamentary processes, hurried passing of bills without adequate debate, and marginalisation of opposition voices have raised concerns about the robustness of legislative oversight.

• Executive Overreach: Accusations of the centralization of power within the executive branch, with increased use of ordinances and bypassing of traditional checks and balances, suggest a potential overreach that undermines democratic norms.

• Judicial Independence: Reports of executive influence over judicial appointments, decisions, and functioning have sparked fears that the judiciary's independence is being compromised, reminiscent of Emergency-era interference.

• Press Freedom: Instances of media censorship, pressure on journalists, and manipulation of media narratives indicate a constrained press, where the appearance of freedom masks underlying control and intimidation.

• Erosion of Democratic Norms: The delegitimization of political opposition through disinformation campaigns, legal challenges, and other means creates a scenario where democracy appears functional but is effectively weakened, with institutions operating as mere facades.

• Electoral Integrity: While elections are held regularly, allegations of electoral manipulation, misuse of state resources, and undermining of the Election Commission’s autonomy raise doubts about the integrity and fairness of the electoral process.

• Civil Liberties: Reports of surveillance, restrictions on protests, and curtailment of free speech suggest that fundamental rights may be compromised, creating a climate of fear and repression similar to the Emergency period.

Short Takes

Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA): A controversial law enacted in India in 1971, giving the government extensive powers to detain individuals without trial and suppress dissent during times of perceived threats to internal security. It was widely used during the Emergency period (1975-1977) to incarcerate political opponents, journalists, and activists, leading to significant criticism and its eventual repeal in 1978.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): Enacted in 1967 to prevent unlawful activities and associations that threaten India's sovereignty and integrity. The Act has been amended multiple times to broaden its scope, allowing the government to designate individuals and organisations as terrorists and to detain them without charge for extended periods.

CONCLUSION

The Emergency provisions, while intended to safeguard national integrity during crises, underscore the critical need for vigilance to prevent their misuse. Reflecting on the 1975-77 Emergency period emphasises the importance of protecting democratic value

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
Emergency Polity National Security