CASES OF PROPER AND IMPROPER USE

Cases of the proper and improper use of emergency provisions in India have been a subject of historical significance and judicial scrutiny.

Proper Use:

1. Indo-Pak War of 1971:
   • Proper Use: During the Indo-Pak War of 1971, a National Emergency was declared under Article 352 by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The situation was characterized by external aggression, fulfilling the criteria specified in the Constitution. The emergency was properly invoked to address the security challenges.
2. Natural Disasters:
   • Proper Use: There have been instances where states declared emergencies or invoked special provisions in response to natural disasters. These situations, such as floods or earthquakes, necessitated coordinated and urgent actions, and the use of emergency powers was considered appropriate.
3. Financial Crisis:
   • Proper Use: The provision of Financial Emergency (Article 360) has not been invoked in independent India. However, in cases where the financial stability of the country is genuinely threatened, the provision could be properly used to address economic crises.

Improper Use:

1. Emergency during the 1970s:
   • Improper Use: The most infamous instance of the improper use of emergency powers in India occurred during the mid-1970s when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of Emergency from 1975 to 1977. The official justification was the maintenance of public order, but the actual reasons were political. The period saw widespread censorship, suspension of civil liberties, and arrests of political opponents. The misuse of emergency powers during this period led to public outrage and was later criticized for its authoritarian nature.
2. The Emergency in Uttarakhand (2016):
   • Improper Use: In 2016, the President’s Rule was imposed in the state of Uttarakhand following a political crisis. The imposition of President’s Rule was criticized by some as an attempt to undermine the democratically elected state government. However, the decision was later overturned by the courts, emphasizing the improper use of emergency powers.
3. Internal Political Disputes:
   • Improper Use: Instances where emergency powers are invoked to settle internal political disputes or for partisan reasons rather than addressing genuine threats to the constitutional order can be considered improper use. Such use undermines the democratic principles and the federal structure of the country.

Judicial Response:

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
   • Judicial Response: In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court emphasized the “basic structure” doctrine, asserting that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This judgment had implications for the limitations on emergency powers.
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976):
   • Judicial Response: The ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency is a notable instance where the judiciary faced criticism for not upholding individual rights during a period of constitutional suspension. The judgment was widely criticized and overruled by subsequent decisions.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977):
   • Judicial Response: In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the proclamation of Emergency must be limited to situations where there is a threat to the security of India or a part thereof by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The judgment emphasized the importance of restricting emergency powers to genuine and exceptional circumstances.

Post-Emergency Reforms:

1. 44th Amendment Act, 1978:
   • Reforms: The 44th Amendment Act was a significant post-Emergency reform that brought changes to the emergency provisions. It explicitly stated that the President’s satisfaction under Article 352 (National Emergency) is subject to judicial review, ensuring a check on potential misuse.
2. Judicial Independence:
   • Reforms: The post-Emergency period witnessed efforts to restore and strengthen the independence of the judiciary to prevent any compromise of constitutional rights during emergencies.

These examples highlight the importance of ensuring that emergency powers are used judiciously, in line with the constitutional principles, and for genuine reasons such as threats to national security or public order. Judicial review and public scrutiny play a crucial role in holding the government accountable for the proper use of emergency provisions.