Facts of the Case
During the period of a National Emergency, the President of India issued a proclamation under Article 352, stating that all Fundamental Rights and their operation were suspended. The action led to a challenge regarding its constitutionality, raising the question whether the President can suspend all Fundamental Rights during an emergency.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the President can suspend all Fundamental Rights during a National Emergency.
- Whether any Fundamental Rights are immune from suspension even during emergencies.
- The scope of Parliamentary amendments and constitutional limitations under the emergency provisions.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 352 – National Emergency
- President may declare National Emergency on the ground of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
- During the emergency, Parliament can extend the operation of laws and suspend certain Fundamental Rights.
- Article 358 – Suspension of Articles 19
- Guarantees of Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) are automatically suspended during emergency declared on grounds of war or external aggression.
- Article 19 suspension applies only to these freedoms, not all Fundamental Rights.
- Article 359 – Suspension of Other Fundamental Rights
- President may suspend the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 21, etc. during emergency.
- Suspension requires President’s proclamation and may be extended by Parliament.
- Exceptions: Article 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences) cannot be suspended.
B. Judicial Principles / Precedents
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88
- Limited rights during emergency may be curtailed but rule of law remains.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
- Parliament cannot alter basic structure of the Constitution, including rights that are fundamental to democracy, even during emergencies.
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- During emergency, some rights may be suspended, but rights like Article 20 cannot be nullified.
- Supreme Court held that certain procedural safeguards cannot be completely eliminated, even in emergency.
C. Principles
- Not all Fundamental Rights are suspendable:
- Article 19 rights can be suspended automatically (Article 358).
- Other rights under Article 14, 21, 22 may be suspended (Article 359), except Article 20.
- Suspension must follow constitutional procedure and cannot violate basic structure.
- Judicial review is limited but not completely barred; courts may ensure constitutional limits are respected.
Possible Judgement / Legal Advice
- Validity of Suspension
- Suspension of all Fundamental Rights indiscriminately is not valid.
- Only Article 19 rights and rights under Article 14, 21, 22 (by presidential order under Article 359) can be suspended.
- Article 20 cannot be suspended under any emergency.
- Legal Limitations
- Suspension must be in accordance with Articles 352, 358, and 359.
- Basic structure of Constitution, including rule of law and judicial review, cannot be nullified.
- Advisory Conclusion
- The proclamation suspending all Fundamental Rights is ultra vires and unconstitutional to the extent it includes rights that cannot be suspended (e.g., Article 20).
- Courts may strike down illegal suspension, while allowing suspension only within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
About lawgnan
Explore the constitutional boundaries of emergency powers under Articles 352, 358, and 359 at Lawgnan.in. Understand when and how the President of India can suspend certain Fundamental Rights, and why Article 20 remains immune even during emergencies. Learn from landmark cases such as ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, which define the limits of executive authority and the protection of constitutional democracy. Visit Lawgnan.in to access simplified legal analyses, case briefs, and expert insights on how India’s Constitution balances emergency powers with citizens’ fundamental rights.
