Emergency powers and administrative law
📘 Emergency Powers & Administrative Law
🔷 What are Emergency Powers?
Emergency powers refer to extraordinary powers granted to the Executive (mainly the President and Central Government) during situations of national threat. These powers temporarily override normal constitutional limitations, and their use is governed by Part XVIII (Articles 352 to 360) of the Indian Constitution.
🔷 Types of Emergencies under Indian Constitution:
National Emergency – Article 352
Triggered by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
President’s Rule (State Emergency) – Article 356
Triggered when constitutional machinery fails in a state.
Financial Emergency – Article 360
Triggered when the financial stability of India is threatened.
🔷 Administrative Law and Emergency
Administrative Law deals with how executive actions are regulated. During emergencies:
The executive (administration) gets broader powers.
Fundamental rights (especially Article 19) may be suspended.
The normal checks and balances (judicial, legislative) may be weakened.
Discretionary powers of government increase dramatically.
This raises key issues:
Is there any limit to emergency powers?
Can the executive be held accountable?
What happens to the rule of law and judicial review?
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Emergency Powers & Administrative Law
1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
Also known as: Habeas Corpus Case
Context: During the 1975 National Emergency, the government suspended the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Facts:
Multiple people were detained without trial. Writs of habeas corpus were filed.
Issue:
Can courts entertain writ petitions challenging detentions when Article 21 is suspended?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled 4:1 that no person has locus standi to approach the court for enforcement of Article 21 during an emergency.
Significance:
Massive blow to administrative accountability and rule of law.
Later overruled and widely criticized as a dark chapter in constitutional history.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Context: This case overruled the reasoning in ADM Jabalpur.
Facts:
Challenge to Aadhaar scheme raised the issue of right to privacy under Article 21.
Held:
A 9-judge bench unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right, and ADM Jabalpur was wrongly decided.
Significance:
Reaffirmed Article 21 even during state actions.
Strong message against unaccountable administrative power during emergencies.
Reinstated the role of judiciary in reviewing emergency powers.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Context: Related to President’s Rule (Article 356) and federalism.
Facts:
President’s Rule was imposed in several states (like Karnataka) allegedly for political reasons, without proper breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Held:
The Court ruled that imposition of Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
The Governor’s report is not immune to scrutiny.
If the proclamation is found mala fide or unconstitutional, court can restore the dismissed government.
Significance:
Strong limit on executive discretion during emergency.
Upheld the federal structure.
Reinforced administrative accountability under emergency provisions.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Context: After the Allahabad High Court invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election, the Parliament passed a law placing election disputes of high offices beyond judicial review during Emergency.
Issue:
Was this constitutional?
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
Judicial review cannot be removed, even during emergency.
Significance:
Asserted judicial supremacy over administrative overreach.
Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine as a shield against emergency misuse.
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Context: Related to post-Emergency constitutional amendments which tried to give unlimited power to Parliament.
Issue:
Can Parliament amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates judicial review or affects basic structure?
Held:
Supreme Court held that limited amending power is part of basic structure.
Judicial review and fundamental rights cannot be taken away, not even during an emergency.
Significance:
Strong safeguard against administrative and legislative authoritarianism.
Set limits on executive emergency powers through judicial review.
📊 Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Outcome & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| ADM Jabalpur (1976) | Are rights suspended during Emergency? | Court said yes (wrongly); later overruled. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy and liberty | Overruled ADM Jabalpur; restored Article 21 protection. |
| S.R. Bommai (1994) | Misuse of President’s Rule | Article 356 is judicially reviewable; protected federalism. |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) | Curtailing judicial review of election disputes | Law struck down; reaffirmed basic structure doctrine. |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Can emergency powers destroy basic structure? | No; judicial review and fundamental rights protected. |
✅ Conclusion
🔐 Emergency powers, while essential in times of national crisis, must be:
Constitutionally regulated
Subject to judicial review
Used only as a last resort
Not override basic human rights and principles of natural justice
Administrative law serves as the legal framework to control the expansion of executive power during such times. The Supreme Court of India, through its evolving jurisprudence, has rebalanced the scales after the Emergency period to ensure accountability, transparency, and constitutionality in governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments