Question

Explain the consequences of national emergency on the grounds of Fundamental Rights and Executive Judiciary relations.

Hint:

Always mention the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978. It was a landmark reform that introduced crucial safeguards, such as making the suspension of Articles 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) impossible during an emergency, to prevent future misuse.

Answer 1

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
A national emergency, declared under Article 352 of the Constitution, grants the central executive extraordinary powers to deal with threats like war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. This has profound consequences on the constitutional framework, especially on citizens' rights and the separation of powers.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Consequences on Fundamental Rights:
1. Suspension of Article 19: According to Article 358, upon the proclamation of a national emergency on grounds of war or external aggression, the six fundamental rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc.) are automatically suspended. The state can then make any law or take any executive action that violates these rights.
2. Suspension of Enforcement of Other Rights: Under Article 359, the President is empowered to issue an order suspending the right of citizens to move any court for the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights (except Articles 20 and 21). This means that while the rights themselves are not suspended, the citizen's ability to seek legal remedy for their violation is taken away.
3. Historical Example (1975 Emergency): During the 1975-77 Emergency, these provisions were used to impose severe press censorship, ban protests, and carry out widespread arrests under preventive detention laws, effectively creating an authoritarian environment.
Consequences on Executive-Judiciary Relations:
1. Shift in Power Balance: The declaration of an emergency leads to a massive concentration of power in the hands of the executive. This fundamentally disrupts the delicate balance between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
2. Curtailment of Judicial Review: With the suspension of the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the judiciary's most potent weapon—the power of judicial review over executive actions that violate these rights—is blunted.
3. Historical Confrontation (1975 Emergency): This period saw a severe strain in executive-judiciary relations. The executive sought to establish its supremacy through measures like superseding senior judges for the post of Chief Justice and passing constitutional amendments (e.g., 39th Amendment) to place the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court's verdict in the infamous \textit{ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla} case, where it upheld the state's power to suspend the Right to Life (Article 21), is seen as a low point for the judiciary in safeguarding citizen's rights against an overreaching executive.
Step 3: Final Answer:
In essence, a national emergency transforms the constitutional fabric, suspending the bedrock of civil liberties and severely weakening the judiciary's ability to act as a check on the executive, leading to a highly centralized and powerful executive branch.