Article 353 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 353 of the Constitution of India
Title: Effect of Proclamation of Emergency
🔹 Full Text of Article 353:
While a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation (under Article 352), the following consequences follow:
(a) The executive power of the Union extends to giving directions to any State as to the manner in which its executive power is to be exercised.
(b) The Parliament is empowered to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, even for subjects in the State List.
👉 Proviso: If a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation only in a part of the territory, then these powers apply only to that part.
✅ Explanation of Article 353:
Article 353 comes into effect only during a National Emergency declared under Article 352 (e.g., for war, external aggression, or armed rebellion).
It gives the Union Government sweeping powers:
Overrides federalism: The normal division of powers (Union vs. State) under Schedule VII is suspended.
Executive control: The Centre can direct States on any matter.
Legislative override: Parliament can legislate even on State List subjects.
Temporary nature: These powers last only till the Emergency remains in force.
⚖️ Important Case Laws Related to Article 353:
🔹 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Also Known As: Habeas Corpus Case
Issue: Whether courts could enforce fundamental rights (Article 21) during Emergency.
Held: During Emergency, Article 21 (right to life and liberty) could be suspended; citizens had no recourse to court for violation of this right.
Relevance: This case highlighted extreme centralization of power during Emergency under Articles 352 & 353.
⚠️ Later overruled by Puttaswamy (2017) and declared bad law.
🔹 Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Issue: Scope and limits of Parliament’s power during Emergency.
Held: Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be violated even during Emergency.
Relevance: Parliament’s powers under Article 353(b) are not unlimited — they are subject to the Constitution’s basic structure.
🔹 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Issue: Misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) and federal structure.
Held: Centre cannot use Emergency provisions to destroy federalism.
Relevance: Although primarily about Article 356, the case stressed that powers under Article 353 must not override constitutional federalism unjustly.
🔹 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Issue: Election of the Prime Minister and impact of Emergency laws.
Held: Though Parliament has wide powers during Emergency, it cannot violate principles of free and fair elections.
Relevance: Checks on Article 353(b) powers — even in Emergency, constitutional norms must be maintained.
🧩 Summary Table of Article 353 Effects:
| Provision | Effect During Emergency |
|---|---|
| Executive Power (a) | Centre can issue binding directions to States |
| Legislative Power (b) | Parliament can legislate on State List subjects |
| Geographical Scope | Limited to area under Emergency |
| Duration | Till the Emergency is in force |
| Judicial Review | Applicable (esp. post-Minerva Mills) |
📌 Conclusion:
Article 353 significantly expands the power of the Union Government during a National Emergency, allowing it to direct states and legislate on state subjects. However, this extraordinary power is subject to constitutional safeguards, judicial review, and cannot be used to destroy the federal structure or fundamental rights (as reaffirmed post-1977 reforms and judicial rulings).
RELATED Blog
0 comments