Martial Law and Article 34 of Constitution
⚖️ Martial Law and Article 34 of the Indian Constitution
1. What is Martial Law?
Martial Law is the imposition of direct military control over civilian functions of government, especially in times of war, rebellion, or emergency.
Under martial law, military authorities take over the administration of justice, including law enforcement and judicial powers, often suspending ordinary laws and civil rights.
It essentially means military rule replacing civilian government temporarily.
2. Martial Law in the Context of Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution does not expressly mention or authorize the imposition of Martial Law.
However, the Constitution provides for emergencies (Article 352, 356, 360) and special powers during armed conflict.
The use of military force or martial law is regulated by constitutional provisions and statutes, such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, but full-scale martial law is constitutionally not envisaged.
Article 34 plays a crucial role regarding the suspension or modification of fundamental rights during martial law.
3. Article 34 of the Constitution of India
Text of Article 34:
*“Restrictions on fundamental rights to be given effect to notwithstanding anything in the Constitution—
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part [Part III on Fundamental Rights] shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—(a) punishing any act which is a criminal offence under the law in force in any part of India at the commencement of this Constitution; or
(b) providing for the trial of offences by military tribunals in cases in which, owing to the outbreak of war or external aggression or armed rebellion, the ordinary courts are not able to function; or
(c) authorizing the punishment of persons for acts which, at the commencement of this Constitution, were subject to any restriction or penalty;
so, however, that such law shall not authorize any such trial of offences by military tribunals after the reestablishment of normalcy and the re-functioning of ordinary courts.”*
4. Key Features of Article 34
It protects laws in force at the commencement of the Constitution that provide for trial by military tribunals.
It permits the State to enact laws allowing trial by military tribunals during:
War
External aggression
Armed rebellion
It recognizes the temporary suspension of ordinary courts due to such extraordinary situations.
However, the power to try persons by military tribunals is temporary and ceases once normalcy is restored and ordinary courts function again.
Article 34 is an exception to fundamental rights, especially the right to a fair trial (Article 21), reflecting the need for extraordinary measures in extreme circumstances.
5. Relation of Martial Law to Article 34
Martial law usually involves military tribunals and suspension of civil courts.
Article 34 constitutionalizes such arrangements to an extent, allowing military tribunals only when ordinary courts are unable to function due to war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
This implies that full martial law as military governance is not expressly authorized, but certain military trials and measures are constitutionally valid under exceptional conditions.
The Constitution ensures restoration of normalcy and civil administration as soon as possible, prohibiting indefinite military rule.
6. Important Case Law
A. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts: The case challenged the constitutionality of military tribunals trying civilians during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Issue: Whether the trial of civilians by military tribunals under the Defense of India Act, 1962 violated Article 21 and fundamental rights.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of military tribunals during the period of external aggression.
It held that Article 34 permits such trials as an exception, provided the ordinary courts are non-functional.
The court emphasized the temporary nature of such tribunals and the importance of restoring normal courts as soon as possible.
Significance: This case affirmed the constitutional validity of military tribunals under Article 34, but restricted their scope and duration.
B. Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998)
Facts: The issue concerned the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and military action in disturbed areas.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognized the constitutional framework allowing extraordinary powers to armed forces in cases of rebellion or armed conflict.
However, the Court insisted on the balance between security needs and fundamental rights protections.
Though not directly on Article 34, this case is important in the context of military powers and their constitutional limits.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Martial Law | Military control over civilian functions in emergency |
| Article 34 | Permits military tribunals during war, aggression, armed rebellion |
| Scope of Military Tribunals | Only when ordinary courts cannot function |
| Duration | Temporary; ceases once normalcy restored |
| Fundamental Rights | Suspended or restricted during martial law as per Article 34 |
| Constitutional Limitation | No permanent military rule; civilian judicial system must resume |
8. Conclusion
Martial law in its classical sense is not explicitly provided for in the Indian Constitution, reflecting India’s commitment to civilian rule and democracy.
Article 34 is a constitutional provision allowing exceptional military trials when ordinary courts are incapacitated due to war, external aggression, or rebellion.
The Supreme Court has upheld these provisions but emphasized their temporary nature and the need for restoration of normal judiciary.
This ensures a balance between national security and protection of fundamental rights, preserving the democratic and constitutional framework.
RELATED Blog
0 comments