Facts of the Case
- A National Emergency was declared in India under Article 352.
- The President issued a proclamation stating that all Fundamental Rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, were suspended during the emergency.
- A civil liberties activist contends that this suspension violates his constitutional rights under Article 21 and approached the High Court seeking enforcement of his rights.
- The matter raises the question whether Fundamental Rights can be entirely suspended during a National Emergency and whether judicial review is permissible.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the President can suspend all Fundamental Rights, including Article 21, during a National Emergency.
- Whether the right to life and personal liberty can be curtailed completely.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear challenges to such suspension.
- Whether such suspension is subject to judicial review under the Constitution.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 352 – National Emergency
- President may declare emergency on grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
- Article 358 – Suspension of Article 19
- Guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, etc., under Article 19 are automatically suspended during emergency on war or external aggression.
- Article 359 – Suspension of Other Fundamental Rights
- President may suspend the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, 22 during emergency.
- Article 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) cannot be suspended.
- Parliament can extend the period of suspension by law.
B. Judicial Principles / Precedents
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- During emergency, some rights may be suspended.
- Supreme Court controversially held that rights under Article 21 can be suspended but Article 20 remains enforceable.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
- Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Fundamental principles of democracy and rule of law must remain intact.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
- Right to life and personal liberty includes procedural safeguards; any action affecting these rights must follow fair procedure.
C. Principles
- Suspension of Rights:
- Article 19 rights are automatically suspended during emergency.
- Other rights (Article 14, 21, 22) can be suspended under Article 359.
- Certain rights (Article 20) cannot be suspended.
- Judicial Review:
- Even during emergency, arbitrariness and mala fide action are subject to review.
- Basic Structure:
- Suspension must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Possible Judgement / Legal Advice
- Validity of Presidential Action
- Suspension of all Fundamental Rights indiscriminately is not constitutionally valid.
- Only rights under Article 19 and selected rights under Article 14, 21, 22 may be suspended under Article 359.
- Rights of the Activist
- The activist can approach the High Court under Articles 226 or 32 to challenge violations beyond permissible limits.
- Courts may review mala fide or arbitrary suspension even during emergency.
- Advisory Conclusion
- Suspension of Fundamental Rights is limited and procedural.
- Complete suspension of Article 21 (life and personal liberty) beyond permissible scope is unconstitutional.
- Courts have the authority to ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards even during emergencies.
About lawgnan
Explore the constitutional limits on the suspension of Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency under Articles 352, 358, and 359. Understand how landmark cases like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Minerva Mills v. Union of India define the scope of judicial review and protection of life and liberty even in emergencies. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed legal analyses, simplified constitutional interpretations, and case-based explanations on emergency powers, judicial safeguards, and the enduring protection of citizens’ rights under the Indian Constitution.
