Briefly discuss the impact of Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Framework and Article 352

Article 352 empowers the President to proclaim three types of emergencies: National Emergency (due to war, aggression, or internal disturbance), President's Rule (failure of constitutional machinery in a state), and Financial Emergency (severe financial crisis). The proclamation is based on a written recommendation from the Cabinet.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

During an emergency, the Constitution allows for the suspension of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, specifically Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully, etc.) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The 1975 Emergency witnessed a significant curtailment of these rights.

• Suspension of Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression was severely restricted, and press censorship was imposed through the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act.
• Internal Security Act (ISA): This Act allowed for preventive detention without trial, leading to the arrest of numerous political opponents and activists. Approximately 1.5 lakh people were arrested under the ISA during the Emergency. (STATISTIC)
• Abolition of Habeas Corpus: The right to approach the court for production of a detained person was suspended.

Impact on Executive Power

The Emergency significantly enhanced the power of the executive.

• Presidential Rule: The President gained extensive powers to issue ordinances and promulgate regulations.
• Administrative Takeover: The government gained unprecedented control over various aspects of life, including the media and educational institutions.
• Amendment Power: The government used the Emergency as justification to pass the 24th Amendment Act in 1975, which curtailed judicial review of constitutional amendments.

Impact on the Judiciary

The 1975 Emergency exposed a critical weakness in the Indian judicial system.

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): While the Supreme Court had initially asserted the power of judicial review, the 24th Amendment Act effectively undermined this power.
• ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This landmark case, often referred to as the "Habeas Corpus case," resulted in a ruling that during an Emergency, citizens did not have the right to approach the courts for redressal of grievances against executive actions. This decision was later widely criticized and overturned.
• Erosion of Judicial Independence: The Emergency demonstrated the vulnerability of the judiciary to executive pressure and highlighted the need for greater judicial independence.

Impact on Democratic Institutions

The Emergency severely damaged the functioning of democratic institutions.

• Parliamentary Subversion: The government effectively bypassed Parliament by issuing Presidential orders and ordinances.
• Electoral Process: Elections were postponed, effectively silencing the voice of the people.
• Erosion of Public Trust: The actions taken during the Emergency eroded public trust in the government and democratic institutions.

Post-Emergency Amendments and Legacy

The experience of the Emergency led to significant constitutional amendments aimed at preventing a recurrence.

• 42nd Amendment Act (1976): While initially intended to solidify the changes brought about during the Emergency, it was later largely repealed.
• 44th Amendment Act (1978): This amendment explicitly curtailed the power of the President to suspend fundamental rights during an emergency and imposed limitations on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It also restored judicial review of constitutional amendments.
• Establishment of Judicial Review Safeguards: The Supreme Court subsequently reinforced the principle of judicial review, ensuring that even constitutional amendments are subject to scrutiny.

Aspect	Pre-Emergency (Before 1975)	During Emergency (1975-1977)	Post-Emergency (After 1977)
Fundamental Rights	Guaranteed and enforceable	Suspended, severely curtailed	Largely restored with safeguards
Judicial Review	Active and robust	Diminished by 24th Amendment	Reaffirmed and strengthened by 44th Amendment
Executive Power	Limited by Constitution	Significantly enhanced	Returned to constitutional limits
Democratic Institutions	Functioning normally	Subverted and weakened	Rehabilitated and strengthened

Case Study: ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla

Title: The Habeas Corpus Case

Description: This case arose from petitions challenging the legality of detenus under the Preventive Detention Act. The Supreme Court, in a controversial ruling, held that citizens could not approach courts during an Emergency to challenge executive actions.

Outcome: This decision was widely condemned as a betrayal of fundamental rights and judicial independence. It was later overturned, and the Supreme Court acknowledged its error, emphasizing the importance of upholding constitutional values even during emergencies.

The Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 has had a profound and lasting impact on India’s constitutional and political landscape. While intended to address extraordinary situations, the experience of 1975 highlighted the potential for abuse of power and the fragility of democratic institutions. Subsequent constitutional amendments have sought to mitigate these risks, reinforcing judicial review and limiting the scope of emergency powers. The legacy of the Emergency serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law, even in times of crisis.