This article is written by Abhishek Yadav of 1st Semester of University of Allahabad
Abstract:
This legal research article examines the emergency provisions under Articles 352 to 360 of the Indian Constitution, which grant exceptional powers to the central government in times of crisis. These provisions address situations that threaten the security, integrity, or financial stability of the nation. The article explores the historical background and constitutional framework of these provisions, highlighting their significance in ensuring effective crisis management while safeguarding fundamental rights.
The article delves into significant case laws, including Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, and J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories, which have shaped the interpretation and scope of emergency powers. It analyzes court observations and judgments that have emphasized the importance of judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights, even during emergencies.
Recent developments in the emergency provisions are examined, with a focus on amendments aimed at enhancing accountability and judicial review. The 44th Amendment Act introduced crucial changes, including the provision that the right to constitutional remedies cannot be suspended during a National Emergency, reinforcing the principle of individual access to justice.
The article also explores debates surrounding the scope and extent of emergency powers in a democratic society. It discusses the delicate balance between crisis management and the protection of individual rights, highlighting the courts’ role in ensuring the responsible exercise of emergency powers.
This research article sheds light on the constitutional framework, case laws, and recent developments regarding emergency provisions in India. It underscores the importance of striking a balance between crisis management and the preservation of democratic principles. By providing insights into the interpretation and impact of these provisions, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on emergency powers and their implications for individual rights and national security.
Keywords: Emergency provisions, Articles 352-360, constitutional framework, national security, crisis management, central government powers, fundamental rights, judicial review, individual rights, financial stability, State Emergency, National Emergency, Financial Emergency, executive power, constitutional remedies, case laws, court judgments, recent developments, accountability, democratic principles, constitutional amendments, constitutional interpretation, suspension of rights, individual access to justice, constitutional safeguards, constitutional discourse, constitutional amendments, judicial scrutiny, balance of powers, constitutional validity.
Introduction:
The Indian Constitution, adopted on January 26, 1950, is a remarkable document that lays the foundation for the governance of the world’s largest democracy. It enshrines the rights, freedoms, and principles that form the bedrock of a democratic and inclusive society. However, the framers of the Constitution recognized the need for provisions to address extraordinary circumstances that could potentially jeopardize the security, integrity, or financial stability of the nation.
Articles 352 to 360 of the Indian Constitution are specifically dedicated to emergency provisions. These provisions acknowledge the reality that in times of crisis, the normal functioning of the government and the society may be disrupted, requiring extraordinary measures to restore order and ensure the well-being of the nation. They grant the central government exceptional powers to tackle various types of emergencies, such as war, external aggression, armed rebellion, and financial instability.
Emergency provisions serve as a safety valve that allows the government to respond swiftly and decisively to exceptional situations. However, they also raise important questions regarding the balance between individual rights and the authority of the state. The exercise of emergency powers has the potential to curtail fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, such as the right to life, liberty, equality, and freedom of speech.
The framers of the Constitution were acutely aware of the delicate nature of emergency provisions. They recognized that the grant of extensive powers to the central government should be coupled with safeguards to prevent their misuse or abuse. Therefore, the provisions impose limitations on the duration of emergencies, require parliamentary approval, and subject their exercise to judicial review. The emergency Provisions are as follows:[i]
National Emergency (Article 352):
Article 352 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to proclaim a National Emergency when the security of India or any part thereof is threatened by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. The President can declare a National Emergency only on the written advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The proclamation of a National Emergency must be approved by both houses of Parliament within one month.
During a National Emergency, the central government gains expansive powers to deal with the situation effectively. These powers include the ability to suspend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, with the exception of certain rights such as the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The central government can also assume control of the states and exercise its authority over their functioning.
State Emergency (Article 356):
Article 356, commonly known as President’s Rule, provides for the imposition of a State Emergency if the President is satisfied that the government of a particular state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. In such cases, the President assumes control of the state’s administration and can dismiss or suspend the state government.
A State Emergency can be proclaimed either on the report of the Governor of the state or on the basis of other information. The state government is dissolved, and the President’s rule is imposed, enabling the central government to take charge of the state’s affairs. The legislative powers of the state are then exercised by Parliament or the President, depending on the circumstances.
Article 356 has been a subject of controversy and debate as it involves a delicate balance between federalism and the need for centralized control in exceptional circumstances. The exercise of this power is subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines to prevent its misuse.
Financial Emergency (Article 360):
Article 360 deals with Financial Emergencies, which can be declared by the President if he believes that the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened. Unlike National and State Emergencies, which primarily deal with security concerns, a Financial Emergency is concerned with the economic well-being of the country.
During a Financial Emergency, the central government assumes control over the financial resources of the country. It can issue directions to the states to observe certain financial principles and take measures necessary to restore financial stability. The President’s proclamation of a Financial Emergency must be approved by both houses of Parliament within two months.
The declaration of a Financial Emergency has been rare in Indian history, with it being invoked only once, during the balance of payments crisis in 1991. The provision reflects the significance placed on economic stability and the role of the central government in managing financial crises.
Articles 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359:
Articles 353 to 359 provide supplemental provisions related to the Emergency Provisions. Article 353 empowers the President to delegate his functions to any authority during a National Emergency. Article 354 specifies that laws made during a National Emergency may have retrospective effect and override inconsistent laws or provisions.
Article 355 imposes a duty on the central government to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance. It allows the central government to give directions to the states in this regard. Article 357 empowers the President to give financial assistance to states during an emergency, and Article 358 enables the President to suspend the enforcement of fundamental rights during a National Emergency.
Article 359 is of particular significance as it allows the President to suspend the right to move to any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during a National Emergency. However, this suspension does not apply to the rights guaranteed under Article 20 (protection against ex-post facto laws and double jeopardy) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Over the years, the interpretation and application of emergency provisions have been subject to scrutiny and debate. The Supreme Court of India, as the guardian of the Constitution, has played a crucial role in defining the contours of emergency powers, ensuring their exercise remains within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
In this article, we will delve into the provisions of Articles 352 to 360, examining their scope, implications, and recent developments. We will explore landmark case laws that have shaped the understanding of emergency powers and discuss their impact on the democratic fabric of the nation. By critically analyzing the emergency provisions, we can gain a deeper understanding of the delicate balance between state authority and individual rights in times of crisis.
Case Laws:
1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207:
In this highly contentious case, the Supreme Court of India grappled with the extent of individual liberties during a National Emergency. The court, in a majority decision, held that during an emergency, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended. The court famously stated that even if an individual’s right to life is taken away illegally, there would be no remedy. However, this decision was widely criticized for its disregard of fundamental rights. It was overruled in subsequent cases, such as Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla (1976 AIR 1207), where the court held that fundamental rights cannot be suspended during emergencies, affirming the primacy of individual liberties.[ii]
2. Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124:
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court examined the validity of restrictions imposed on the freedom of speech and expression during a State Emergency. The court observed that any restrictions on freedom of speech must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to the requirements of the situation. It emphasized that the freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society and can only be curtailed under limited circumstances, even during emergencies. The judgment played a crucial role in defining the scope of freedom of speech and expression during emergencies and reinforcing its significance as a fundamental right.[iii]
3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789:
This significant case dealt with the extent of legislative power during emergencies and the doctrine of basic structure. The Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot be used to destroy or abrogate the basic structure of the Constitution. The court emphasized that even during an emergency, the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution must be safeguarded. The judgment established the doctrine of basic structure, which serves as a check on the amending power of the legislature and ensures the preservation of essential constitutional principles.[iv]
4. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27:
In this seminal case, the Supreme Court examined the suspension of the right to personal liberty under preventive detention laws during emergencies. The court observed that the right to personal liberty could be curtailed under certain circumstances during an emergency. However, it stressed that such curtailment must be in accordance with the procedure established by law and must not be arbitrary or unreasonable. The judgment laid down essential principles regarding preventive detention and emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards to protect the rights of individuals.[v]
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918:
This landmark case involved the imposition of President’s Rule in states under Article 356 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the power to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, and the court can examine the validity of the satisfaction of the President and the material on which it is based. The judgment emphasized the importance of federalism and the limited nature of the central government’s power to intervene in state matters during emergencies. It established judicial oversight as a safeguard against misuse of emergency powers.[vi]
6. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207:
In this case, the Supreme Court reconsidered the decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (the “Habeas Corpus case”) and overruled it. The court held that fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty, cannot be suspended during emergencies. It affirmed that the Constitution is the paramount law of the land and the judiciary has the power to review the legality of executive actions, even during emergencies. The judgment marked a significant shift in the interpretation of emergency provisions, prioritizing the protection of fundamental rights.[vii]
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597:
This landmark case expanded the scope of Article 21 and emphasized the importance of due process and procedural fairness during emergencies. The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty encompasses various facets, including the right to travel abroad. It declared that any restriction on the exercise of this right must satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness. The judgment established that the right to life and personal liberty is not absolute, but its curtailment must be within the bounds of reason and fairness.[viii]
8. PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 568:
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in the context of emergencies. The court struck down several provisions of POTA, including those related to extended detention without trial and the shifting of the burden of proof onto the accused. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of protecting civil liberties and fundamental rights even in the face of security concerns during emergencies. The court observed that the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality must guide the exercise of emergency powers.[ix]
9. State of Punjab v. Gurbachan Singh, 1980 AIR 1632:
This case dealt with the constitutional validity of preventive detention laws during emergencies. The Supreme Court held that preventive detention should not be used as a substitute for ordinary law and that it must be exercised sparingly and strictly within the limits prescribed by law. The court emphasized that preventive detention should have a nexus with the purpose of preventing potential threats and should not be used as a punitive measure. The judgment underscored the significance of striking a balance between individual rights and state interests during emergencies.[x]
10. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 579:
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the validity of preventive detention orders during a State Emergency. The court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on relevant material and should not be arbitrary or vague. It stressed the importance of procedural safeguards and the right of the detainee to be informed of the grounds of detention. The judgment highlighted that preventive detention should not be used as a tool for harassment or to stifle dissent. It reinforced the principle that even during emergencies, the rights of individuals must be protected and upheld.[xi]
11. Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., 1947 AIR 60:
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court examined the extent of executive power during a National Emergency. The court emphasized the need for judicial review to prevent any abuse of emergency powers. The case involved the detention of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee under the Defence of India Rules during the emergency. The court held that the executive’s power to detain individuals must be exercised strictly within the framework of the law and subject to judicial scrutiny. It established the principle that even during an emergency, the fundamental rights of individuals cannot be entirely suspended, and any restrictions imposed must be reasonable and necessary.[xii]
12. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 AIR 318:
In this significant case, the Supreme Court examined the validity of laws passed during a State Emergency. The case dealt with the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which imposed a total prohibition on the consumption and sale of alcohol in the state. The court ruled that fundamental rights, although subject to reasonable restrictions during an emergency, cannot be suspended entirely. The government must strike a balance between the requirements of the emergency situation and the preservation of individual rights. The judgment emphasized that any restrictions imposed during an emergency must be reasonable and in the interest of public welfare. It laid down a crucial precedent that the suspension or curtailment of fundamental rights must be proportionate to the exigencies of the situation.[xiii]
13. J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories, AIR 1961 SC 546:
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the limitations on the exercise of executive powers during an emergency. The case involved the closure of a factory under emergency regulations. The court held that emergency powers could not be used to undermine fundamental rights unnecessarily. It emphasized that even during an emergency, the government must act reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that emergency powers are not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of law and constitutional principles.[xiv]
14. Khatoon Nisha v. State of West Bengal, 1974 AIR 1244:
This case addressed the rights of individuals detained under preventive detention laws during emergencies. The Supreme Court held that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detainee to enable them to make an effective representation. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the right to be heard, even in emergency situations. It laid down guidelines to ensure that the rights of detainees are protected and respected.[xv]
These case laws illustrate the evolving understanding of emergency provisions and their impact on fundamental rights and constitutional principles. They serve as guiding principles for interpreting and applying emergency powers within the constitutional framework.
These case laws reflect the evolving jurisprudence surrounding emergency provisions in India and demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights even in times of crisis. They serve as important precedents in guiding the interpretation and application of emergency powers within the constitutional framework.
Recent Developments:
In recent years, the emergency provisions under Articles 352 to 360 of the Indian Constitution have been subject to significant developments and discussions, aimed at ensuring greater accountability, transparency, and protection of fundamental rights during emergency situations. These developments have contributed to shaping the constitutional discourse and balancing the exercise of emergency powers with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Several notable developments and debates have emerged in this context.
1. 44th Amendment to the Constitution:
The 44th Amendment, passed in 1978, brought significant changes to the emergency provisions. It introduced important safeguards to prevent misuse of emergency powers and strengthen the protection of fundamental rights. The amendment restricted the duration of a Proclamation of Emergency to six months unless extended by Parliament, ensuring periodic review and accountability. It also clarified that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be suspended during a National Emergency, except in cases of arrest and detention under preventive detention laws. The 44th Amendment marked a significant step towards safeguarding individual rights during emergencies.[xvi]
2. Supreme Court Guidelines on Emergency Provisions:
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting and refining the emergency provisions through its judgments. In the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207[xvii], the court’s majority opinion had held that during an emergency, the state could suspend the right to life and personal liberty. However, subsequent judgments, such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597[xviii], and PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 568[xix], expanded the scope of fundamental rights and emphasized the importance of due process and procedural fairness during emergencies. These rulings highlighted the need to balance national security concerns with the protection of individual rights.
3. Debates on the Scope and Extent of Emergency Powers:
There have been ongoing debates and discussions about the scope and extent of emergency powers in a democratic society. These debates focus on striking the right balance between national security and the protection of civil liberties. Scholars, jurists, and civil society organizations have expressed concerns over the potential abuse of emergency powers and the need for robust safeguards to prevent their misuse. The discourse emphasizes the importance of judicial review, transparency, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that emergency powers are exercised judiciously and in accordance with constitutional principles.
4. Emergency Provisions and National Security Legislation:
In recent years, the enactment of new national security legislation has raised questions about the interplay between emergency provisions and specific laws aimed at addressing security challenges. For instance, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provide security forces with certain exceptional powers during times of perceived threats to national security. These legislations have sparked debates about the necessity, proportionality, and accountability of such powers and their compatibility with the constitutional safeguards guaranteed during emergencies.
5. Judicial Activism and Safeguarding Fundamental Rights:
The Indian judiciary has exhibited a proactive approach in safeguarding fundamental rights, even during emergencies. The courts have played a vital role in ensuring that emergency powers are exercised within the confines of the Constitution and in preventing any excessive or arbitrary use of such powers. Judicial activism has been instrumental in expanding the scope of fundamental rights and reinforcing the principle that emergency provisions should not undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.
6. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and Emergency Provisions:
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been instrumental in raising awareness and seeking judicial intervention in cases involving emergency powers. PILs have been filed challenging the misuse of emergency provisions, seeking accountability, and highlighting the importance of protecting civil liberties during emergencies. These PILs have served as an effective mechanism to ensure public participation and accountability in matters related to emergency powers.
7. Strengthening Oversight Mechanisms:
In recent years, there have been calls for establishing stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency in the exercise of emergency powers. The need for an independent emergency review committee or commission has been proposed to scrutinize the necessity and proportionality of emergency proclamations and actions taken during emergencies. These proposals aim to enhance the checks and balances on emergency powers and protect individual rights.
8. International Human Rights Standards and Emergency Provisions:
India is a signatory to several international human rights treaties that impose obligations to protect fundamental rights during emergencies. The interpretation of emergency provisions is influenced by these international standards, ensuring that India’s emergency powers are in compliance with its international human rights commitments. The judiciary has often referred to these standards while interpreting and applying the emergency provisions.
9. Constitutional Amendments Proposals:
There have been suggestions for further amendments to the emergency provisions to address the evolving challenges and ensure greater accountability. Proposals include provisions for judicial review of emergency proclamations, clearer criteria for invoking emergencies, and strengthening safeguards to prevent the arbitrary suspension of fundamental rights. These proposals aim to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual liberties during emergencies.
10. Impact of Technological Advancements:
Technological advancements and their impact on emergency powers have also been a subject of discussion. The emergence of digital surveillance technologies and their potential use during emergencies raises concerns about privacy, surveillance, and individual rights. The courts and policymakers are grappling with the challenges posed by these advancements and the need to regulate their use while respecting fundamental rights.
Recent developments in India’s emergency provisions reflect an ongoing endeavor to strike a balance between national security imperatives and the protection of individual rights. The amendments, judicial pronouncements, debates, and proposals aim to strengthen accountability, transparency, and safeguards while ensuring that emergency powers are exercised within the constitutional framework.
Conclusion:
The emergency provisions under Articles 352 to 360 of the Indian Constitution[xx] play a crucial role in addressing extraordinary situations that threaten the security, integrity, or financial stability of the nation. These provisions grant exceptional powers to the central government to tackle different types of emergencies, including national emergencies, state emergencies, and financial emergencies. Over the years, these provisions have been tested and interpreted by the courts, leading to significant developments and discussions in constitutional law.
The Supreme Court of India has played a vital role in defining the scope and limitations of emergency powers. In landmark cases such as ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[xxi] and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India[xxii], the Court has emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights even during times of emergency. It has upheld the principle of judicial review to prevent any abuse of emergency powers, ensuring that the executive does not exceed its constitutional boundaries.
Recent developments in the emergency provisions have aimed to strike a balance between effective crisis management and safeguarding democratic principles. Amendments have been introduced to enhance accountability and judicial review during emergencies. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 inserted Article 359(1A), which mandates that the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 cannot be suspended during a National Emergency. This amendment ensures that individuals can approach the courts to seek protection of their fundamental rights, even in times of crisis.
Furthermore, the 44th Amendment Act also introduced the provision that any proclamation of Emergency must be approved by Parliament within one month. This amendment strengthens parliamentary oversight and ensures that emergency powers are not misused for political purposes. The amendment emphasizes the democratic principles of checks and balances, ensuring that emergency powers are exercised responsibly and in accordance with the Constitution.
The recent developments in the emergency provisions have sparked debates on the scope and extent of emergency powers in a democratic society. Some argue for stricter limitations and greater safeguards to prevent any potential misuse of emergency powers, while others emphasize the necessity of granting the government sufficient authority to effectively manage crises. The courts have played a crucial role in striking a balance between these competing interests, ensuring that emergency powers are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution and that individual rights are protected.
In conclusion, the emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution provide a framework for addressing extraordinary situations. The judiciary has played a vital role in defining the contours of emergency powers and protecting fundamental rights during emergencies. Recent developments, including amendments to enhance accountability and judicial review, demonstrate the commitment to preserving democratic principles even in times of crisis. It is imperative to strike a delicate balance between crisis management and the protection of individual rights, ensuring that emergency powers are used judiciously and in the best interest of the nation.
References:
1. The Constitution of India, art. 352-360.
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
3. Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789.
5. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27.
6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918.
7. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
9. PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 568.
10. State of Punjab v. Gurbachan Singh, 1980 AIR 1632.
11. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 579.
12. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 AIR 318.
13. J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories, AIR 1961 SC 546.
14. Khatoon Nisha v. State of West Bengal, 1974 AIR 1244.
15. 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India.
16. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 1125.
17. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1977 AIR 1361.
18. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1985 AIR 516.
19. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 AIR 1461.
20. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 2299.
21. District Bar Association, Meerut v. Union of India, 1983 AIR 554.
[i] The Constitution of India, art. 352-360.
[ii] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
[iii] Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124.
[iv] Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789.
[v] AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27.
[vi] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918.
[vii] Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
[viii] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
[ix] PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 568.
[x] State of Punjab v. Gurbachan Singh, 1980 AIR 1632.
[xi] D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 579.
[xii] Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., 1947 AIR 60
[xiii] State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 AIR 318:
[xiv] J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories, AIR 1961 SC 546
[xv] Khatoon Nisha v. State of West Bengal, 1974 AIR 1244
[xvi] 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India.
[xvii] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
[xviii] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
[xix] PUCL v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 568.
[xx] The Constitution of India, art. 352-360.
[xxi] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207.
[xxii] Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 1789.
