Article 34 of the Costitution of India with Case law
📜 Article 34 of the Constitution of India
Title: Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area
✅ Text of Article 34:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a State or any other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within the territory of India where martial law was in force, or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area.
🔍 Explanation and Scope:
Article 34 grants special powers to Parliament during martial law situations (i.e., when military authority temporarily replaces civil authority).
It allows Parliament to restrict fundamental rights (Part III) in such areas.
It empowers Parliament to:
Indemnify officials (protect them from legal consequences).
Validate actions, punishments, or sentences carried out under martial law.
The article acts as a constitutional safeguard for military and government personnel during emergencies where martial law is imposed.
🛑 Note: Martial law is not defined in the Constitution. It is understood from British constitutional tradition, and applied only under extreme circumstances like war, rebellion, or insurrection.
🧑⚖️ Important Case Law on Article 34:
✅ Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Though not directly on Article 34, this case discussed limitations on Parliament's power under Article 34 and other emergency provisions.
The Court held that even when martial law is in force, the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed.
Parliament cannot override core constitutional values.
✅ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Context: During the Emergency (1975–77), civil liberties were suspended.
Though not martial law, this case reflects how the judiciary viewed State action during times of extreme power.
Later overruled in the Puttaswamy (2017) and Maneka Gandhi cases, reasserting the importance of fundamental rights, even during emergencies.
✅ Indemnity Ordinance Cases (Post-Partition)
In early post-Independence India, ordinances were passed to indemnify public servants for actions taken during Partition riots and martial law-like conditions.
Parliament used Article 34 to pass indemnity laws protecting those involved in restoring order in affected areas.
📝 Key Features of Article 34:
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Applicable During | Martial Law (not Emergency) |
| Power Given To | Parliament (not State Legislature) |
| Purpose | To indemnify public servants/validate acts during martial law |
| Overrides | Fundamental Rights (Part III), but only temporarily and in affected areas |
| Protection Given | To both public officials and private persons acting to restore order |
🔔 Difference: Martial Law vs Emergency
| Basis | Martial Law | Emergency (Art. 352/356/360) |
|---|---|---|
| Declared by | Not formally declared; imposed by executive/military | Declared by President |
| Scope | Localised (area-specific) | Nationwide or state-wide |
| Nature | Military authority takes over | Civil authority continues |
| Provision | Article 34 | Articles 352–360 |
RELATED Blog
0 comments