Judicial review plays a crucial role in the context of emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that the exercise of emergency powers by the executive, especially the President, is within the constitutional framework and that fundamental rights are not arbitrarily suspended or violated.
1. Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review:
- Article 13(2): The Indian Constitution under Article 13(2) declares that any law that contravenes fundamental rights shall be void. This provision forms the constitutional basis for judicial review.
- Supremacy of the Constitution: The judiciary has the authority to review executive and legislative actions to ensure that they conform to the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Judicial Review and Emergency Provisions:
- Article 358: During a National Emergency, Article 358 suspends the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 19. However, this suspension is not absolute, and the President’s satisfaction about the existence of an emergency is subject to judicial review.
- Article 359: Article 359 empowers the President to suspend the enforcement of certain fundamental rights during a proclamation of emergency (Article 352), including National Emergency, State Emergency (President’s Rule – Article 356), or Financial Emergency (Article 360). The validity of the suspension order is subject to judicial scrutiny.
3. Key Aspects of Judicial Review in Emergencies:
- Sufficiency of Material: The President’s satisfaction about the existence of grounds for emergency is a subjective matter. However, the courts can review whether there was sufficient material before the President to warrant the proclamation of emergency.
- Scope of Emergency Powers: Courts can examine whether the emergency powers, including the suspension of fundamental rights, are exercised within the scope defined by the Constitution. Any excessive or arbitrary use of emergency powers can be struck down.
- Proportionality: The principle of proportionality is crucial in judicial review. Courts assess whether the restrictions imposed during emergencies are proportionate to the exigencies of the situation.
- Constitutional Compliance: Judicial review ensures that the proclamation of emergency, the exercise of executive authority, and any laws or orders made during the emergency comply with the constitutional provisions.
4. Key Judicial Decisions:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended. This decision has implications for the limitations on emergency powers.
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): In a controversial decision during the Emergency in 1975-77, the Supreme Court, in a 4-1 majority, held that during an emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended. This decision has been widely criticized and later overruled by subsequent judgments.
- Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla (1976): The Habeas Corpus case, also known as the ADM Jabalpur case, is a notable instance where the judiciary, during the Emergency, faced criticism for not upholding individual rights during a period of constitutional suspension.
5. Post-Emergency Reforms:
- 44th Amendment Act, 1978: The 44th Amendment Act brought significant changes, including the restoration of the power of judicial review during emergencies. It explicitly stated that the satisfaction of the President under Article 352 (National Emergency) is subject to judicial review.
- Restoration of Judicial Independence: The post-Emergency period witnessed efforts to restore and strengthen the independence of the judiciary to prevent a repeat of situations where constitutional rights were perceived to be compromised.
6. Balancing Emergency Powers and Fundamental Rights:
- Inherent Tension: The inherent tension between the need for strong executive action during emergencies and the protection of fundamental rights is resolved through the concept of judicial review.
- Checks and Balances: Judicial review serves as a crucial check on the potential abuse of emergency powers, ensuring that the rule of law and constitutional principles are upheld even in times of crisis.
7. Conclusion:
Judicial review in the context of emergency relations in India is a dynamic and evolving process. It reflects the constitutional commitment to balancing the need for strong executive action during emergencies with the protection of individual rights and the rule of law. The judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution and fundamental rights remains pivotal, particularly during challenging times when emergency powers are invoked.
