Emergency Provisions — Contents
01Overview & Constitutional Articles
02National Emergency (Art. 352)
03Effect of National Emergency
04Art. 358 vs Art. 359 — Impact on FRs
05State Emergency / President’s Rule (Art. 356)
06Effect of State Emergency
07Judicial Review of Art. 356 — Key Cases
08Proper & Improper Use of Art. 356 (Bommai)
09Committee Recommendations on Art. 356
10Financial Emergency (Art. 360)
11Comparison: All Three Emergencies
1244th Amendment — Before & After
13Criticism of Emergency Provisions
14Current Affairs 2024–25
15Mock Mains Questions
01 — Overview & Constitutional Articles
352–360
Articles (Part XVIII)
3
Types of Emergency
3
National Emergencies Declared
135
Times President’s Rule Imposed
0
Financial Emergencies Declared
Source & Purpose
Emergency provisions are drawn from: (1) Government of India Act, 1935 — the structural framework; (2) Constitution of the Weimar Republic of Germany — the provision for suspension of Fundamental Rights. Purpose: to protect the Constitution, democratic system, financial stability, and the sovereignty, unity, integrity, and security of the nation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar hoped Art. 356 would remain a “dead letter”.
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Art. 352 | Proclamation of National Emergency — on grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion |
| Art. 353 | Effect of Proclamation of National Emergency on Centre-State relations (legislative + executive) |
| Art. 354 | Application of financial provisions during National Emergency |
| Art. 355 | Duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbances; ensure governance per Constitution |
| Art. 356 | Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States — President’s Rule (State Emergency) |
| Art. 357 | Exercise of legislative powers under proclamation of Art. 356 — Parliament may delegate power to President |
| Art. 358 | Suspension of Art. 19 during National Emergency (external emergency only; automatic) |
| Art. 359 | Suspension of enforcement of FRs (other than Arts. 20 & 21) during National Emergency by Presidential Order |
| Art. 360 | Provisions relating to Financial Emergency |
| Art. 365 | Effect of failure of a State to comply with or give effect to any directions of the Union — basis for President’s Rule |
02 — National Emergency (Article 352)
Terminology
The Constitution uses the expression “Proclamation of Emergency” only for National Emergency under Art. 352. The terms “State Emergency” and “Financial Emergency” are NOT used in the Constitution itself.
Grounds
External Emergency
When security of India or a part of it is threatened by:1. War
2. External Aggression
Can be proclaimed even before actual threat occurs — on imminent danger thereof (38th Amendment, 1975).
Internal Emergency
When security of India or a part of it is threatened by:1. Armed Rebellion
Originally worded as “internal disturbance” — changed to “armed rebellion” by 44th Amendment, 1978 to prevent misuse.
Declaration Procedure & Safeguards
| Stage | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Written Cabinet Recommendation | President can proclaim NE only on the basis of a written recommendation from the Union Cabinet (Council of Ministers headed by PM). Not just PM — full Cabinet. (44th Amendment, 1978) |
| Parliamentary Approval | Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month from the date of its issue by a Special Majority. (44th Amendment reduced this from 2 months to 1 month) |
| Special Majority Definition | Majority of total membership of the House AND majority of not less than 2/3 of members present and voting |
| If Lok Sabha Dissolved | Must be approved by reconstituted Lok Sabha within 30 days from its first sitting, provided Rajya Sabha has approved it in the meantime |
| Separate Proclamations | President can issue different proclamations on different grounds simultaneously (38th Amendment, 1975) |
Duration & Continuation
- Once approved, continues for 6 months
- Can be extended indefinitely — with Parliamentary approval by Special Majority every 6 months
- No maximum period prescribed for National Emergency
Revocation
By President
President can revoke at any time by a subsequent proclamation. No Parliamentary approval required.
By Parliament (Lok Sabha)
- Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving continuation
- 1/10th of total LS members give written notice to Speaker (if in session) or President (otherwise)
- Special sitting held within 14 days
- Resolution passed by Simple Majority
Territorial Extent
- Can extend to entire country or only a part of it
- 42nd Amendment (1976) enabled President to limit operation of NE to a specified part of India
Historical Instances of National Emergency
| Declared | Reason | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| October 1962 | Chinese aggression (Indo-China War) — External Emergency | October 1962 – January 1968 (~5 years) |
| December 1971 | Indo-Pak War — External Emergency. 1962 Emergency still in force when this was declared. | December 1971 – March 1977 |
| June 1975 | Internal political crisis — Internal Emergency. Declared by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on PM Indira Gandhi’s advice. | June 1975 – March 1977 |
Prelims Note
After March 1977, no National Emergency has been proclaimed in India. The 1965 Indo-Pak war saw no new Emergency — the 1962 Emergency was still in force. All three NEs were declared by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. The 1975 Emergency is called the “Internal Emergency” — the only time internal emergency was imposed in India.
03 — Effect of National Emergency
| Domain | Effect |
|---|---|
| Executive (Centre-State) |
|
| Legislative (Centre-State) |
|
| Financial (Centre-State) |
|
| Life of Lok Sabha |
May be extended beyond 5 years by a law of Parliament for one year at a time (for any length of time). Extension cannot continue beyond 6 months after Emergency ceases. |
| Life of State Legislature |
Parliament may extend the normal tenure of State Legislative Assembly (5 years) by one year each time (for any length of time). Cannot continue beyond 6 months after Emergency ceases. |
| Fundamental Rights |
Art. 358 and Art. 359 apply. See Section 4 for details. Arts. 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during NE (44th Amendment). |
04 — Articles 358 & 359 — Impact on Fundamental Rights
| Parameter | Article 358 | Article 359 |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Automatically suspends Art. 19 (6 freedoms) for the entire duration of Emergency | President can issue a Presidential Order (PO) suspending the right to move any court for enforcement of FRs mentioned in the PO |
| Trigger | Automatic — no separate Presidential Order needed | Requires a separate Presidential Order |
| Articles Affected | Only Article 19 (6 freedoms: speech, assembly, movement etc.) | All FRs mentioned in the PO except Articles 20 and 21 (Arts. 20 & 21 can never be suspended) |
| Type of Emergency | External Emergency only (war or external aggression) — does NOT apply during internal emergency (armed rebellion) | Both external and internal Emergency |
| Duration | For the entire duration of External Emergency — cannot be for a shorter period | Can be for the entire duration or a shorter period specified in PO |
| Territorial Extent | Extends to entire country | Can extend to part or entire country |
| State vs Non-state Action | Suspension applies to state AND non-state actions | Suspension applies to both state and non-state actions — court remedy is suspended, not the right itself |
Critical Note — 44th Amendment (1978)
Articles 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended under Art. 359 even during a National Emergency — added by the 44th Amendment. This means the right against double jeopardy/self-incrimination (Art. 20) and the right to life and personal liberty (Art. 21) are absolutely inviolable.
Judicial Review of National Emergency
38TH AMENDMENT ACT, 1975
Made declaration of NE immune to judicial review. President’s satisfaction was made final and conclusive.
44TH AMENDMENT ACT, 1978
The immunity provision was deleted — NE once again became justiciable.
MINERVA MILLS CASE, 1980
SC held NE proclamation can be challenged on grounds of: (1) Mala fide; or (2) Declaration based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts, or is absurd or perverse.
05 — State Emergency / President’s Rule (Articles 356 & 365)
Terminology
Also known as President’s Rule or Constitutional Emergency. The Constitution does NOT use the word “emergency” for this situation. It is the only emergency that affects only one state (not all states). Origin: derived from Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Grounds
Article 356
Based on report from Governor of a State or otherwise, if President is satisfied that the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Art. 356 gives power to ensure Art. 355 becomes effective. Note: “or otherwise” means President can act even without Governor’s report — on his own information.
Article 365
Whenever a State fails to comply with or give effect to any direction from the Centre, it shall 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 Constitution. Art. 365 provides an additional ground for Art. 356.
Safeguards & Procedure
| Stage | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary Approval | Must be approved by both Houses within 2 months from date of issue. Process: Simple Majority (contrast with NE which requires Special Majority) |
| If LS Dissolved | Proclamation survives until 30 days from first sitting of reconstituted LS, provided RS has approved in the meantime |
| Initial Duration | 6 months after approval by both Houses |
| Maximum Duration | 3 years — extended by Parliament every 6 months |
| Beyond 1 Year (44th Amendment) | Extension beyond 1 year requires BOTH conditions to be fulfilled: (1) NE is in operation in whole or part of India; (2) EC certifies that general elections to state assembly cannot be held |
| No Assembly Dissolution | Per S.R. Bommai (1994) and Bommai guidelines: President shall NOT dissolve the Assembly until Parliament approves the proclamation |
Revocation
- May be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent proclamation
- Such revocation proclamation does NOT require Parliamentary approval
- No provision for Lok Sabha to pass a resolution for revocation (unlike NE)
Historical Instances
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| First Instance | June 1951 — Punjab (Government dismissed despite having a clear majority in the Assembly) |
| Total Impositions | 134–135 times across 29 States/UTs since 1950 (PDF states “~120 times” — outdated) |
| Most Frequent State | Manipur — 11 times (including February 2025); Uttar Pradesh — 10 times |
| Longest Duration (State) | Jammu & Kashmir — over 15 years total (including 1990–1996 and 2019–2024) |
| Most Under a PM | Indira Gandhi — 51 times |
| PM Never Imposed | I.K. Gujral — never imposed President’s Rule during his tenure |
| Last Instance (2025) | Manipur, February 2025 — after CM N. Biren Singh resigned following ethnic violence (Meitei-Kuki). Lok Sabha approved extension. |
06 — Effect of State Emergency (President’s Rule)
President Acquires Extraordinary Powers
- Can take up all functions of the State Government and powers vested in the Governor or any other executive authority in the State
- Can declare that powers of State Legislature are to be exercised by Parliament
- Can take all other necessary steps including the suspension of constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority in the State
- Exception: Powers of the High Court are NOT affected — HC continues to function independently
Other Effects
- President dismisses the State Council of Ministers
- Governor, on behalf of the President, carries on State administration with help of Chief Secretary or advisors appointed by President
- State Assembly may be dissolved or kept in suspended animation depending on circumstances. Proclamation may declare state legislative powers exercisable by Parliament.
- Art. 357: Parliament may confer legislative power on President and authorize him to further delegate it to any other authority
- Parliament can authorize President to sanction expenditure from Consolidated Fund of the State
- No effect on Fundamental Rights of citizens (unlike National Emergency)
- Relationship of only the state under emergency with Centre undergoes modification (not all states)
07 — Judicial Review and Article 356 — Key Cases
K.K. Aboo v. Union of India (1965) — Kerala HC
- First case dealing with Art. 356. Kerala HC refused to go into the constitutionality of the proclamation.
- Courts for a long time gave support to actions of the Central Government — no judicial review.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — SC
- SC did judicial review on limited grounds
- Immunity for Presidential action could not exist in case of mala fide or irrelevant grounds
- A limited check on the unfettered executive power
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — 9-Judge Bench SC — LANDMARK
- The Proclamation is NOT immune from judicial review — no restriction on court examining material on basis of which President formed his satisfaction
- SC or HC can strike down the Proclamation if it is mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds
- Power conferred by Art. 356 is conditioned, not absolute
- President shall NOT dissolve the Assembly until Parliament approves the proclamation
- Centre should issue a warning notice to the erring state asking for reasons
- Once proclamation is issued, State Government has to go — cannot have two governments in one sphere
- Secularism is a Basic Feature of the Constitution — its violation by State Govt makes it liable to dismissal under Art. 356
- Court can provide remedy and reinstate the government if intentions are proved mala fide
- Floor test must be conducted to determine majority before invoking Art. 356
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors v. Union of India (2006) — SC
- For fighting social evils like defection, Art. 356 cannot be invoked
- Immunity under Art. 361 does not take away power of Court to examine validity of the action
- Reaffirmed Bommai principles — proclamations are subject to judicial scrutiny
08 — Proper & Improper Use of Art. 356 (S.R. Bommai Case)
Proper Use of Art. 356
- In case of Hung Assembly — no party gets majority
- Party having majority declines to form ministry and President/Governor cannot find a coalition ministry
- State government disregards constitutional direction of the Centre
- Internal subversion — government deliberately acting against Constitution and law, or fomenting violent revolt
- Physical breakdown — government wilfully refuses to discharge constitutional obligations, endangering security of the state
Improper / Unconstitutional Use
- Ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority without probing possibility of alternative ministry
- Not allowing ministry to prove majority on floor of the Assembly
- Ruling party enjoying majority in Assembly has suffered massive defeat in LS elections (like 1977, 1980)
- Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown
- Maladministration or allegations of corruption against ministry or financial difficulties
- State government not given prior warning to rectify itself
09 — Committee Recommendations on Art. 356
Sarkaria Commission (1987)
- Art. 356 should be used very sparingly as a matter of last resort
- Any imposition should be accompanied with a report by Governor to President
- No dissolution of Assembly till proclamation is ratified by Parliament
NCRWC (2002)
- Warning issued to errant State in specific terms
- Any explanation received from State should be taken into account
- No dissolution till ratification by Parliament
- Art. 356 should be amended to include Bommai guidelines
- Governor’s report should be given wide publicity in all media and in full
- Safeguards corresponding to Art. 352 to be incorporated in Art. 356
Punchhi Commission (2008) & Law Commission
- Recommended localized emergency rather than full state takeover
- Duration should not exceed 3 months
- Art. 356 should be amended to incorporate Bommai guidelines
- Law Commission: Art. 355 should be used instead of Art. 356 where possible
10 — Financial Emergency (Article 360)
Never Declared in India
Financial Emergency has NEVER been declared in India. Even during the severe economic crisis of 1990–91, no Financial Emergency was declared. This is the only type of emergency that has never been invoked.
Ground
- If the financial stability or credit of India, or any part thereof is threatened
- Declared by the President of India
Procedure & Safeguards
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary Approval | Must be approved by both Houses within 2 months from date of issue. Resolution passed by Simple Majority. |
| If LS Dissolved | Proclamation to be approved within 30 days of first sitting of newly constituted LS |
| Duration | No maximum period prescribed. Can continue for an indefinite period until revoked by President. |
| Continued Approval | Repeated Parliamentary approval NOT required for continuation (unlike NE and President’s Rule) |
| Revocation | May be revoked by President at any time. No parliamentary approval required for revocation. |
Effects of Financial Emergency
- President can give directions to States to observe canons of financial propriety
- Can issue directions to reduce salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving under the State or the Union — including judges of the SC and HCs
- All Money Bills and Financial Bills passed by State Legislature can be reserved for President’s consideration
- No effect on Fundamental Rights of citizens
11 — Comprehensive Comparison: All Three Emergencies
| Parameter | National Emergency (Art. 352) |
State Emergency / President’s Rule (Art. 356) |
Financial Emergency (Art. 360) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds | War, external aggression, or armed rebellion threatening security of India or part thereof | Failure of constitutional machinery in a State (Art. 356); State’s failure to comply with Centre’s directions (Art. 365) | Threat to financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof |
| Declared By | President (on written Cabinet recommendation) | President (on Governor’s report or otherwise) | President |
| Cabinet Recommendation | Written recommendation of Cabinet mandatory (44th Amendment) | Not required specifically — President acts on Governor’s report or otherwise | Not specifically required |
| Parliamentary Approval | Special Majority within 1 month | Simple Majority within 2 months | Simple Majority within 2 months |
| Duration after Approval | 6 months; renewed every 6 months by Special Majority | 6 months; maximum 3 years; renewed every 6 months by Simple Majority | Indefinite — no maximum period prescribed |
| Renewal Approval Required? | Yes — every 6 months by Special Majority | Yes — every 6 months by Simple Majority | No — repeated approval NOT required |
| Maximum Period | No maximum — can be extended indefinitely | 3 years maximum | No maximum — indefinite |
| Impact on State Exec/Legislature | State exec and legislature continue; Centre gets concurrent powers over State list | State exec dismissed; State legislature dissolved or suspended; President takes over | No direct impact on state exec/legislature; financial directions only |
| Impact on Fundamental Rights | Art. 358 (auto-suspension of Art. 19 in external emergency) + Art. 359 (PO suspends other FRs except Arts. 20, 21) | No effect on FRs | No effect on FRs |
| Centre-State Relation | Relationship of Centre with all states undergoes modification | Only the affected state’s relationship with Centre changes | Financial relationship with states affected |
| Lok Sabha Revocation | Yes — LS can pass simple majority resolution for revocation | No — only President can revoke | No — only President can revoke |
| Delegation of Law-Making | Parliament CANNOT delegate to any other body/authority | Parliament CAN delegate to President or any other authority (Art. 357) | Not applicable |
| Instances in India | 3 times (1962, 1971, 1975) | 134–135 times | Never declared |
12 — 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) — Before & After
Context
The 44th Amendment was enacted by the Janata Party government to undo several changes made by the 38th, 39th, and 42nd Amendments passed during the Emergency period (1975–77) under Indira Gandhi. It introduced the most comprehensive safeguards against misuse of emergency provisions.
| Provision | Before 44th Amendment | After 44th Amendment (1978) |
|---|---|---|
| Ground for NE (Internal) | “Internal disturbance” — very wide, could cover any civil unrest | “Armed rebellion” — narrower and more specific, requiring actual armed activity |
| Cabinet Recommendation | President could proclaim NE on advice of PM alone (verbally) | Requires written recommendation from the entire Cabinet (Council of Ministers) |
| Parliamentary Approval Period | 2 months from date of issue | Reduced to 1 month — faster parliamentary check |
| Majority for Approval | Simple majority of each House | Special majority (majority of total membership + 2/3 present and voting) |
| Revocation by LS | No specific provision for Lok Sabha to revoke | Lok Sabha can pass resolution by simple majority for revocation; 1/10 members can call special sitting |
| Judicial Review of NE | NE immune to judicial review (38th Amendment, 1975) | NE is justiciable — can be challenged on mala fide or irrelevant grounds (Minerva Mills confirmed) |
| Arts. 20 & 21 during NE | Could be suspended by Presidential Order under Art. 359 | Arts. 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended even during NE — absolute protection |
| Art. 358 (Suspension of Art. 19) | Applied during any NE (internal or external) | Now applies only during external emergency (war/external aggression) — NOT during internal emergency |
| President’s Rule — Beyond 1 Year | Could be extended beyond 1 year with simple parliamentary approval | Beyond 1 year requires BOTH: (1) NE in operation; (2) EC certification that elections cannot be held |
13 — Criticism of Emergency Provisions
- Violates Fundamental Rights — power to suspend FRs (Arts. 358 & 359) allows curtailment of individual liberties. Risks abuse of power.
- Imposed on Political Grounds — Art. 356 has been used to dismiss opposition governments; Art. 352 was misused in 1975 for internal political crisis.
- Used Frequently, Not as Last Resort — Art. 356 imposed 134+ times; Bommai case attempted to curb this.
- Undermines Federal Spirit — transforms federal structure into unitary; states lose autonomy, especially under Art. 356.
- Concentration of Power in Executive — raises fears of authoritarianism. PM + Cabinet can effectively paralyse a state government.
- Governor’s Report Subjective — Governor is an appointee of Centre; report may not be impartial.
- Threat to Democracy — elected state government can be dismissed by Centre, undermining democratic mandate.
- National Emergency Precedent (1975) — showed how provisions designed for external threats can be weaponised for political purposes.
Mains Angle — Balancing Act
A balanced answer should also note the necessity of emergency provisions: enables rapid response to threats to sovereignty; prevents state governments from acting against constitutional provisions; ensures national unity during crises. The key is to have robust safeguards (Bommai guidelines, 44th Amendment) alongside these powers.
14 — Current Affairs & Recent Developments (2024–25)
President’s Rule in Manipur · February 2025
Manipur Placed Under President’s Rule — 11th Time for the State
- CM N. Biren Singh (BJP) resigned on 9 February 2025 after meeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah, following prolonged Meitei-Kuki ethnic violence since May 2023 (250+ deaths, thousands displaced)
- President Droupadi Murmu issued proclamation under Art. 356, citing Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla’s report
- This marks Manipur’s 11th President’s Rule — the most for any state in India
- Total Art. 356 impositions now: 134–135 times (PDF figure of “~120” is outdated)
- Lok Sabha approved extension for another 6 months (2025)
- UPSC Relevance: Demonstrates both proper use (constitutional breakdown/ethnic violence) and the debate around federal relations, federalism, Art. 355 duty of Centre, and Bommai guidelines
SC Ruling on Governor’s Powers · 2025
Constitution Bench Rules on Governor’s Assent to Bills (Art. 200)
A Constitution Bench (CJI B.R. Gavai, 2025) ruled that the Governor has only 3 constitutional options under Art. 200 — assent, reserve for President, or return (not a 4th independent pocket veto). Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent. This ruling is directly relevant to Centre-State relations and the context in which Art. 356 may be invoked (due to deadlock between Governor and elected government). States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab had filed petitions against their respective Governors.
J&K Statehood & Art. 356 Context · 2024
J&K Restored as a State After Elections (Nov 2024)
Jammu & Kashmir, which had been under President’s Rule / Central Rule since 2019 (following Art. 370 abrogation and reorganisation into two UTs), held Legislative Assembly elections in September–October 2024. The National Conference-Congress alliance formed the government under Omar Abdullah in November 2024. J&K holds the record for the longest total duration under central rule (15+ years across different periods).
44th Amendment Context · Ongoing
Safeguards Introduced by 44th Amendment Remain Relevant
The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) remains the most important post-Emergency reform. Key points for UPSC: (1) Written Cabinet recommendation — prevents PM acting alone; (2) Special majority for NE approval; (3) Arts. 20 and 21 non-suspendable; (4) Art. 358 limited to external emergency only; (5) 1/10 LS members can demand special sitting for revocation. These safeguards directly address the abuses of the 1975–77 Emergency period.
15 — Mock Mains Questions
Q1. “The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 introduced critical safeguards against the misuse of emergency provisions.” Discuss the significant changes introduced by the 44th Amendment and evaluate their adequacy.
Approach: Context — 1975 Emergency abuses (written Cabinet recommendation absent; simple majority sufficed; Arts. 20/21 suspendable; Art. 358 applied in internal emergency too) → 44th Amendment changes: (1) “Armed rebellion” replaces “internal disturbance”; (2) Written Cabinet recommendation mandatory; (3) Special majority for NE; (4) 1-month approval period; (5) LS can revoke by simple majority; (6) Arts. 20 & 21 non-suspendable; (7) Art. 358 only in external emergency; (8) President’s Rule beyond 1 year needs NE + EC certification → Evaluation: Adequacy — better than before; Gaps — Governor’s subjectivity remains; no floor test mandate in Art. 356; Bommai (1994) filled some gaps judicially → Conclusion: Constitutional + judicial safeguards work in tandem.
Q2. Article 356 has been described as both a “necessary evil” and “a weapon in the hands of the Centre.” Critically analyse this statement with reference to constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and historical instances.
Approach: Necessity — Art. 355 duty of Centre; constitutional breakdown scenarios (hung assembly, physical breakdown); protects constitutional governance → Evil — 134+ impositions; Indira Gandhi imposed 51 times; Janata Party dismissed Congress states 1977; political misuse; undermines federalism; Governor’s report subjective → Judicial Evolution: KK Aboo (no review) → Rajasthan (limited review) → Bommai 1994 (full review; floor test; secularism; warning; no dissolution till Parliament approval) → Rameshwar Prasad 2006 (defection not valid ground) → Recent: Manipur 2025 (relatively valid use — ethnic breakdown) → Reforms suggested: Sarkaria/NCRWC/Punchhi Commission recommendations; localized emergency; mandatory floor test in Constitution → Conclusion: Retain but reform with stronger procedural safeguards.
Q3. Differentiate between the impact of National Emergency under Article 352 and President’s Rule under Article 356 on Centre-State relations and fundamental rights.
Approach: Centre-State: NE — Centre gets concurrent state list powers; state exec continues; affects all states → PR — Centre takes over state exec directly; state exec dismissed; only affected state impacted → FRs: NE — Art. 358 auto-suspends Art. 19 (external only); Art. 359 PO suspends other FRs except 20, 21; FRs affected → PR — NO effect on FRs at all → Legislative: NE — Parliament makes laws on state list; state legislature continues; 6-month inoperative clause → PR — Parliament exercises state legislative powers; state legislature dissolved/suspended; Art. 357 delegation allowed → Parliamentary approval: NE = Special Majority (1 month); PR = Simple Majority (2 months) → Revocation: NE — LS can force revocation; PR — only President.
Q4. Discuss the significance of the S.R. Bommai case (1994) in limiting the arbitrary use of Article 356. How has it shaped the relationship between the Centre and States?
Approach: Pre-Bommai — Art. 356 largely immune to review; political tool (1977 Janata, 1980 Congress dismissals) → Bommai 9-judge bench rulings: (1) JR available; (2) Not absolute power; (3) No assembly dissolution before Parliament approval; (4) Warning to state; (5) Floor test; (6) Secularism as Basic Feature; (7) Court can reinstate government → Impact on Centre-State: Art. 356 impositions fell sharply post-1994 (from 2.5/year pre-1994 to ~1/year post); states have stronger protection; Governors restrained → Lingering gaps: Bommai is judicial not constitutional; legislative incorporation still pending (NCRWC/Punchhi recommendations) → Conclusion: Bommai is India’s most important federalism judgment — shifted balance towards cooperative federalism.
Q5. Examine the provisions relating to Financial Emergency under Article 360. Why has it never been declared despite India facing severe economic crises?
Approach: Art. 360 provisions: threat to financial stability/credit; simple majority; 2-month approval; no maximum period; no repeated approval; effects — directions to states on financial propriety, reduce judges’ salaries, reserve Money Bills for President → Never declared: 1990–91 crisis (BoP crisis, IMF bailout) → reasons why not declared: (1) Political costs — signals weakness; (2) Alternative tools available — IMF loan, fiscal consolidation, foreign exchange adjustments; (3) India’s federal structure makes central financial override politically explosive; (4) Lenders may demand but the Constitution does not specify when it “must” be declared → Implications if declared: Centre can cut judges’ salaries (rare constitutional provision allowing this); full financial federalism suspension; states lose fiscal autonomy → Conclusion: A provision held in reserve; availability may itself act as deterrent signal to markets.
