Detailed Study Notes for Unit V

Unit-V: Emergency Provisions, Impact on Federalism & Basic Structure Doctrine

1. Emergency Provisions (Part XVIII, Articles 352 to 360)

The Indian Constitution incorporates unique emergency provisions that temporarily transform the ordinary federal structure into a unitary system to safeguard national security and sovereignty.

A. National Emergency (Article 352)

Grounds: Proclaimed by the President if the security of India or any part of its territory is threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion (the term “internal disturbance” was replaced by “armed rebellion” via the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978).
Approval and Duration: Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month by a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting). Once approved, it continues for 6 months and can be extended indefinitely.
Revocation: The President must revoke a proclamation if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving its continuation (inserted via 44th Amendment).

B. State Emergency / President’s Rule (Article 356)

Grounds: Proclaimed by the President upon a report from the Governor or otherwise, if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Approval and Duration: Must be approved by both Houses within two months. Maximum duration is 3 years, subject to parliamentary extensions every 6 months and strict constitutional safeguards (S.R. Bommai Case).

C. Financial Emergency (Article 360)

Grounds: Proclaimed if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened.
Effect: Enables the Union to issue directions for the reduction of salaries and allowances of all or any class of persons serving the Union and States (including Supreme Court and High Court judges). (Note: Financial emergency has never been proclaimed in India).

2. Impact of Emergency on Federalism and Fundamental Rights

A. Impact on Federal Structure

During a National Emergency, the executive and legislative power of the Union expands: Parliament can make laws on any subject enumerated in the State List, and the Centre can issue binding administrative directions to State Governments, temporarily converting federalism into a unitary system.

B. Impact on Fundamental Rights (Articles 358 & 359)

Article 358 (Suspension of Article 19): While a National Emergency operates, the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 are automatically suspended, and laws infringing Article 19 cannot be challenged.
Article 359 (Suspension of Enforcement of Other Rights): Empowers the President by order to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (except Articles 20 and 21, which cannot be suspended under any circumstances pursuant to the 44th Amendment).

3. Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure Doctrine (Article 368)

A. Amending Power (Article 368)

Parliament may amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 368 (requiring special majority in both Houses, and ratification by at least half of the State legislatures for federal matters).

B. Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) & Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Held that Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): Overruled earlier rulings, holding that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, and Parliament cannot amend Part III of the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 – 13 Judge Bench): The historic turning point. The Supreme Court held that Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 is vast, but does not include the power to alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
- Elements of Basic Structure: Supremacy of the Constitution, Republican and Democratic form of government, Secularism, Separation of Powers, Federalism, Rule of Law, and Judicial Review.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, striking down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that sought to give absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and bar judicial review of constitutional amendments.

4. In-Depth Landmark Case Studies

Case Study 1: Judicial Review of President’s Rule and Secularism as Basic Structure

Case Title: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Citation & Court: (1994) 3 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India, 9-Judge Constitution Bench)
Related Constitutional Provisions: Article 356 and Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Story & Real-Line Background: Following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Central Government dismissed several state governments run by the opposition BJP in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh under Article 356, citing breakdown of secularism. The dismissed Chief Ministers challenged the proclamations.
Legal Issues Involved: The scope of judicial review over presidential proclamations under Article 356 and whether secularism forms part of the basic structure.
Final Judgement & Ratio Decidendi:
- Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Article 356 is subject to judicial review. If a presidential proclamation is found to be mala fide, based on irrelevant grounds, or issued without objective material, it can be struck down by courts, and state assemblies can be restored. Furthermore, Secularism is an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Ratio: President’s Rule is an extraordinary power subject to strict judicial scrutiny; misuse can be undone by courts, and secularism is inviolable.

Case Study 2: The Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Case Title: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Citation & Court: (1973) 4 SCC 225 (Supreme Court of India, 13-Judge Constitution Bench)
Related Constitutional Provisions: Article 368 and Fundamental Rights.
The Story & Real-Line Background: The petitioner, head of a math in Kerala, challenged the constitutional validity of land reform legislation enacted by the state and subsequent constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments) passed by Parliament restricting property rights and amending Article 368.
Legal Issues Involved: Whether Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is unlimited or subject to implied limitations.
Final Judgement & Ratio Decidendi:
- Ruling: By a narrow 7-6 majority, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot amend, alter, or destroy the “Basic Structure” or foundational pillars of the Constitution. Fundamental rights can be amended, but basic features like democracy, judicial review, federalism, and rule of law are inviolable.
- Ratio: Parliament’s constituent amending power is plenary but bounded by the unalterable Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Quick Reference Guide: Unit-V Constitutional Law–II

Unit Number	Topic / Concept Name	Relevant Constitutional Scope	Core Description / Subject Matter
Unit-V	National Emergency	Article 352	Proclaimed on war, external aggression, or armed rebellion; suspends Article 19.
Unit-V	President’s Rule	Article 356	Federal breakdown in states; subject to judicial review under S.R. Bommai.
Unit-V	Basic Structure Doctrine	Article 368 (Kesavananda Bharati)	Inviolable foundational features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot amend.