In a vastly infotaining novel of yore, The R Document, Irving Wallace envisages an unstuck attempt to add to the US Constitution a provision akin to Article 352 of the Indian Constitution—government’s power to declare both external and internal emergency, suspending freedom of speech. Of course, such a putative dictator-rule regime has not been provided for in the US Constitution, either before or after the novel. The Bill of Rights is sacred and inviolate for the American people.
So much so that, in the US, there is no equivalent provision allowing the blanket suspension of constitutional rights, except that the following extraordinary powers are available:
1. The U.S. Constitution permits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus only when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, public safety may require it.
2. The National Emergencies Act, 1976, enables the President to declare an emergency and access over 100 specialised statutory powers, but they are subject to oversight and must be renewed annually by Congress. Both these powers have largely remained on paper, though the incumbent President has been itching to use one or more of such statutory powers. Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, however, arms the political executive to declare both external and internal emergency.
So far, external emergency has been declared twice— 1962, in the wake of Chinese aggression, and 1971, to deal with Pakistan’s muscle-flexing in quelling rebellion in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The only instance of declaration of internal emergency was in 1975, when fundamental rights, especially freedom of speech allowed under Article 19, were suspended. That followed the Allahabad High Court unseating Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi from the Lok Sabha, convicting her of resorting to corrupt practices in defeating the feisty and voluble opposition candidate Raj Narain.
It lasted just about two years, but a lot of havoc was wreaked, including forced sterilisation and incarceration of opposition leaders. Indeed, it was a dark chapter in the post-independence era. As an aside, it may be pointed out that the use of government servants and government jeeps for campaigning, in hindsight, sounds a mere peccadillo. Article 352 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to declare a National Emergency if the security of India or any part thereof is threatened by war, external aggression (external emergency), or armed rebellion (internal emergency). Both require written advice from the Union Cabinet, must be approved by Parliament within one month via a special majority, and can be extended every six months.
The Constitution (44th Amendment) has substituted ‘internal disturbance’ with the term ‘armed rebellion’ as a safeguard against the possible encore of the 1975 experience, but to many in the know that is mere quibbling or legal hairsplitting. Yours truly is of the opinion that the internal emergency power gives the creeps by its sheer existence. It must be scrapped. It has no place in a democracy. The BJP has had three stated articles of faith: scrapping of Article 370, power to give special rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir; construction of the Ram Mandir at its birthplace in Ayodhya; and a uniform civil code. The first made an invidious distinction between J&K and the rest of India.
It was wangled by Maharaja Hari Singh as a precondition for merger with India on the eve of independence. It enabled the central government to block certain laws and rights being extended to J&K. One of them was that outsiders could not acquire property in J&K. In 2019, this blatant discrimination was abolished. The second stated article of faith has also been accomplished, thanks to the deft handling of the matter by the Apex Court. The third is work in progress. The fourth and fifth articles of faith, albeit unstated and muted, are rationalising the Waqf Act so that the Waqf Board does not run amok, and scrapping internal emergency powers. This is not an interference in Muslim practices but a much-needed attempt to bring about a uniform property code.
This has been accomplished to a substantial measure by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, though it is facing challenge before the Apex Court. Work on the fifth unstated article of faith—scrapping of the power to declare internal emergency—brooks no delay. The Modi government stokes the embers of the 1975 internal emergency on June 25 by bemoaning it as Samvidhan Hatya Divas, testifying to its revulsion towards internal emergency powers. But stoking the dying embers of that dark chapter once a year, while possibly yielding political dividends, is not the same as scrapping the powers lock, stock and barrel, or casting them into the dustbin where they belong, lest they tantalise an incipient tyrant by their sheer existence.
Despite the use of the term ‘armed rebellion’ as the flashpoint for its invocation, and the need for both Houses of Parliament to ratify it, it does not sit well with a democracy. The reluctance of successive governments since 1977 to amend Article 352 to abolish declaration of internal emergency shows that each of them is impelled to retain the powers just in case. The Modi government would cover itself with glory if it translates its intent of condemning the Emergency into action by nipping the possibility of its encore in the bud. Its continued existence in the Constitution bristles with danger. The Modi government should not be seen as pussyfooting on this seminal issue.
A beginning can be made immediately, with a Constitution Amendment Bill introduced on June 25, 2026. Unlike the bill to amend Article 370, this one would sail through with possible token protest from a chastised Congress. The opprobrium of an incipient tyrant would stick to those who oppose it. As far as armed rebellion is concerned, the normal laws of the land are enough to deal with anarchists without targeting the entire nation. External emergency powers may, however, be retained, as external aggression is a different proposition altogether. India, the largest democracy, should be seen as being on the same page as the oldest democracy, the USA.
The author is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.
