Test: Emergency Provisions - 2 - CLAT PG MCQ

The S.R. Bommai case clarified that Article 356 is an extreme measure to be used only when there is clear evidence of constitutional machinery failure in a state. The Supreme Court emphasized that this power must be exercised with caution and is not absolute, ensuring a check on potential misuse.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reinforced its authority to review the validity of Presidential Proclamations during emergencies. The Court highlighted the necessity of ensuring that constitutional criteria are met, thus maintaining a balance between governmental power and individual rights.

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is used to ascertain the true nature of a statute, ensuring that it aligns with the competencies granted to the state or central government. If the essence of the act pertains to a subject within the State List, it is deemed valid, even if it touches upon subjects in the Union List. This principle ensures that legislation is interpreted based on its actual purpose rather than just its title or incidental implications.

In Arjun Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the court determined that Article 16, which relates to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, was not suspended simply because it was not mentioned in the presidential order. This case emphasized that only those rights explicitly stated in the order are subject to suspension, thus protecting certain fundamental rights from arbitrary actions.

The 44th Amendment Act restored the reviewability of actions taken under Article 356, requiring the Union of India to present justifying materials when challenged. This change reinforced the judiciary's role in checking executive power and ensuring that proclamations are made based on legitimate constitutional grounds.

The principle of proportionality emphasizes that any restriction of rights during emergencies must be reasonable and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, such as security. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary action by ensuring that the measures taken do not excessively infringe upon individual rights.

The Doctrine of Occupied Field pertains to legislative entries that are expressly subject to corresponding entries in the Union List or Concurrent List. It ensures that once Parliament has enacted a law on a subject, the States cannot legislate on the same matter, emphasizing the principle of legislative authority and the need for clarity in jurisdictional powers.

Article 359(1) allows the President to suspend the right of individuals to approach the courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency. This suspension, however, does not apply to all rights; it specifically targets those outlined in the presidential order, leaving some fundamental rights intact.

Constitutional amendments are crucial for adapting the Constitution to contemporary realities and addressing emerging challenges. They allow for the rectification of loopholes, the incorporation of evolving ideals, and the alignment of legal frameworks with the changing values and priorities of society, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document.

In the A.D.M. Jabalpur case, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of the right to approach the courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights during the emergency declared under Article 359. This decision highlighted the significant limitations placed on individual rights during times of national crisis, although dissenting opinions stressed the importance of the right to life and liberty.

The case of K C Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa illustrates the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, where the Supreme Court ruled that legislation appearing to operate within its powers can be deemed unconstitutional if it indirectly transgresses those limits. This doctrine emphasizes that legislation cannot circumvent constitutional restrictions through indirect means, maintaining the integrity of legislative authority.

The Principle of Ancillary Powers asserts that the authority to legislate on a primary subject includes the power to address matters that are reasonably connected to it. This means that, while a state can legislate on land reforms, it can also address related issues, such as land mortgages, to effectively implement those reforms. However, this does not extend to unrelated subjects explicitly listed in the Constitution.

A state law with extra-territorial operation is valid as long as there is a real and pertinent nexus with India. This means that the law’s application must have a substantial connection to the territory, ensuring that the law serves its intended purpose and adheres to constitutional parameters. This principle supports the legislative power of states to address issues that may extend beyond their geographical boundaries.

Judicial review serves to ensure that the conditions outlined in Article 356(1) are satisfied. The courts can examine if there are adequate grounds for the proclamation and challenge it if the conditions were fulfilled in a mala fide manner or were based on irrelevant considerations. This mechanism is essential to uphold constitutional governance and protect against arbitrary use of power.

The case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India was significant as it marked the first examination by the Supreme Court of the judicial review process concerning Proclamations under Article 356. The court upheld the dissolution of state assemblies by the central government, affirming the constitutional validity of such actions.

The amendment process is characterized by its ability to balance flexibility with rigidity by allowing amendments to be initiated through different methods, including both simple and special majorities. This ensures that the Constitution can be updated and adapted while still requiring a robust consensus for significant changes, reflecting the will of the people through their representatives.

Articles 20 and 21, which provide for protection against conviction for offenses and ensure the right to life and personal liberty, respectively, cannot be suspended under any circumstances during a state of emergency. This reflects the fundamental nature of these rights, which are considered essential to human dignity.

The primary procedure for amending the Constitution involves introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament, which must then be passed by a special majority of both Houses before being presented to the President for assent. This process is designed to ensure that significant changes to the Constitution reflect a broad consensus among elected representatives.

Article 13 exempts amendments made under Article 368 from its provisions. This means that changes to the Constitution through the amendment process are not subject to the limitations set out in Article 13, which deals with the invalidation of laws that contravene fundamental rights. This exemption underscores the unique nature of constitutional amendments in India.

The Doctrine of Eclipse indicates that existing laws conflicting with fundamental rights do not become completely void; instead, they are rendered unenforceable only to the extent of their inconsistency with those rights. Such laws may still be applicable for past transactions and can be revived if constitutional amendments remove the conflict. This nuanced approach allows for continuity in legal frameworks while respecting fundamental rights.