Emergency provisions

The first principle

Every constitution must say what happens when ordinary rules cannot cope, whether because of war, the breakdown of government in a state or a collapse of public finances. India's answer is to let its federal system turn temporarily unitary, concentrating power in the Union so that the country can act as one. The danger is obvious, because a power meant for a crisis can be used to manufacture one, and the history of these provisions is the history of building safeguards around them after they were misused.

The core

Part XVIII of the Constitution (Articles 352 to 360) provides for three kinds of emergency. The idea came from the Government of India Act, 1935, and the suspension of rights from the Weimar Constitution of Germany. Article 355 also places a duty on the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that its government runs according to the Constitution.

National emergency (Article 352)

• Grounds. The President may proclaim an emergency if satisfied that the security of India or any part of it is threatened by war, external aggression or armed rebellion, even before the actual event if the danger is imminent. The Forty fourth Amendment (1978) replaced "internal disturbance", the ground used in 1975, with "armed rebellion".
• Cabinet decision. Since 1978 the President can act only on the written decision of the Union Cabinet, not on the advice of the Prime Minister alone.
• Approval and duration. The proclamation must be approved by both Houses within one month by a special majority (a majority of total membership and two thirds of those present and voting). It then lasts six months and can be extended indefinitely, six months at a time, by fresh approvals.
• Revocation. The President may revoke it at any time, and must revoke it if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution of disapproval by a simple majority. One tenth of Lok Sabha members can require a special sitting for this within 14 days.
• Effects on federalism. Parliament can make laws on State List subjects (Article 250), the Union can give directions to any state on how to use its executive power (Article 353), and the President can modify the distribution of revenues (Article 354). The life of the Lok Sabha can be extended by a year at a time.
• Effects on rights. Under Article 358, the freedoms in Article 19 are suspended automatically, but only when the emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression. Under Article 359, the President may by order suspend the enforcement of other rights, except Articles 20 and 21, which can never be suspended after 1978.
• Use. A national emergency has been proclaimed three times: in 1962 during the war with China, in 1971 during the war with Pakistan, and on 25 June 1975 on the ground of internal disturbance. The last two were revoked in March 1977.

President's rule (Articles 356 and 365)

• Grounds. The President may take over a state's government if satisfied, on the Governor's report or otherwise, that it cannot be carried on according to the Constitution (Article 356). Under Article 365 such a failure may be presumed when a state does not comply with directions of the Union.
• Approval and duration. Both Houses must approve the proclamation within two months by simple majority. It lasts six months at a time, up to three years. Beyond one year it can continue only if a national emergency is in force and the Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held, a condition added by the Forty fourth Amendment.
• Effects. The President takes over the state executive, usually through the Governor, and Parliament or the President makes laws for the state. The Assembly may be suspended or dissolved, but the High Court is not affected.

Financial emergency (Article 360)

• Grounds. The President may proclaim it if satisfied that the financial stability or credit of India or any part of it is threatened.
• Approval and duration. Both Houses must approve it within two months by simple majority, after which it continues until revoked, with no maximum period and no need for repeated approval.
• Effects. The Union can direct states to observe canons of financial propriety; the salaries of state and Union employees, including judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, may be reduced; and money Bills and other financial Bills of the states may be reserved for the President. It has never been used, not even in the balance of payments crisis of 1991.

Dimensions

• Federal. All three emergencies tilt power to the Union, which is why K. C. Wheare's description of India as quasi federal draws so much on Part XVIII. President's rule in particular has been the sharpest point of conflict between the Centre and states.
• Rights. The 1975 Emergency showed that suspending the enforcement of rights can leave citizens without any remedy against detention. In ADM Jabalpur (1976) the Supreme Court held that no one could approach a court for habeas corpus during the emergency, a ruling later declared wrong in K. S. Puttaswamy (2017).
• Political. Article 356 was used in its early decades to dismiss opposition governments, as in Kerala in 1959 and in the dismissal of several state governments together in 1977 and 1980.
• Constitutional design. The Forty fourth Amendment, passed after the Shah Commission inquired into the excesses of the Emergency, rebuilt the safeguards: armed rebellion in place of internal disturbance, a written Cabinet decision, special majority approval within a month, a Lok Sabha power to end it, and protection for Articles 20 and 21.

In practice

President's rule after S. R. Bommai

• S. R. Bommai v Union of India (1994). A nine judge bench held that a proclamation under Article 356 is open to judicial review, that the majority of a government must be tested on the floor of the House and not in the Governor's residence, that the Assembly should not be dissolved until Parliament approves the proclamation, and that the Court can restore a dismissed government. It also held secularism and federalism to be basic features, so a state government acting against secularism could be removed.
• Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2006). The Court held the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly in 2005 unconstitutional, because the Governor's report rested on speculation that a majority would be formed by improper means.
• Recent use. In 2016 the courts intervened against President's rule in Uttarakhand and ordered a floor test, after which the proclamation was withdrawn. Manipur was placed under President's rule in February 2025 after the Chief Minister resigned amid prolonged ethnic violence.
• Reduced frequency. Article 356 has been used more than 100 times since 1950, but far less since the mid 1990s. The reasons are legal and political: judicial review and the floor test after Bommai; coalition governments in which regional parties held the balance; the need for Rajya Sabha approval, where the ruling party often lacked a majority; the political cost of being seen to misuse it; and closer scrutiny of Governors' reports.

Issues and way forward

• The debate in the Constituent Assembly. Members such as H. V. Kamath warned that these provisions could destroy the autonomy of states and open the way to dictatorship. Ambedkar replied that the Articles were a safeguard for extreme cases and hoped they would remain a dead letter; the record since then shows that the fear was not misplaced and that the safeguards had to be added later.
• Misuse of Article 356. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) found that many proclamations were made for political reasons. It recommended using the power only as a last resort, after warning the state and exploring alternatives, with the Governor's report made public and the Assembly kept in suspension until Parliament approves.
• Localised emergencies. The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended that Articles 355 and 356 allow a localised emergency over a district or part of a state, so that a whole state government need not be removed to deal with a local crisis.
• Role of the Governor. Most misuse begins with a Governor's report. Both commissions recommended that Governors be persons detached from active politics and that their reports be speaking documents (see the note on the Governor).
• Emergency and rights. The 1978 safeguards protect life and liberty, but laws like preventive detention statutes still allow wide powers in ordinary times, so the lesson of 1975 depends on vigilance as much as on text.

Common confusions

• Articles 358 and 359. Article 358 suspends Article 19 automatically, only in an emergency for war or external aggression; Article 359 suspends enforcement of other rights only by a Presidential order, and never Articles 20 and 21.
• Article 356 and Article 365. Article 356 is the power; Article 365 is one ground on which failure of constitutional machinery may be presumed.
• Approval periods. A national emergency needs approval within one month by special majority; President's rule and a financial emergency need approval within two months by simple majority.
• Duration. President's rule has a ceiling of three years; a national emergency and a financial emergency have no maximum period.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: Article 352, armed rebellion, written decision of the Cabinet, Forty fourth Amendment, Articles 358 and 359, Article 356, Article 365, failure of constitutional machinery, S. R. Bommai, floor test, Rameshwar Prasad, Sarkaria Commission, Punchhi Commission, Article 360, dead letter.
• Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction with data: "President's rule under Article 356 has been imposed more than 100 times since 1950, but its use fell sharply after the S. R. Bommai judgement of 1994."
  • Introduction with a quote: "Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly he hoped that the emergency Articles would never be called into operation and would remain a dead letter."
  • Conclusion: "The emergency provisions are a necessary insurance for a large and diverse federation, but their legitimacy rests on the safeguards of 1978 and on the floor test and judicial review that Bommai made routine."
  • Conclusion: "Adopting the Sarkaria and Punchhi recommendations, including localised emergencies and transparent Governors' reports, would bring Article 356 closer to Ambedkar's hope that it remain a dead letter."