What are Civil Liberties?

Civil liberties refer to the fundamental rights and freedoms that protect individuals from arbitrary government interference. In India, these liberties are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution under Fundamental Rights.

• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of movement
• Right to life and personal liberty
• Protection against arbitrary detention

What are Emergency Powers?

Emergency powers are extraordinary provisions in the Indian Constitution that allow the central government to take special actions during national crises. These powers are invoked under:

• Article 352 (National Emergency)
• Article 356 (President's Rule)
• Article 360 (Financial Emergency)

The balance between civil liberties and emergency powers in the Indian context is a delicate issue. While emergency powers are critical for national security, they can pose a threat to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This project seeks to explore how the Indian Constitution attempts to safeguard civil liberties even when emergency powers are invoked.

2. The Indian Constitution and Civil Liberties

Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution):

The Constitution of India provides several Fundamental Rights (Articles 12 to 35), which guarantee the protection of individual freedoms and rights. These include:

• Right to Equality (Article 14-18): Protection against discrimination and equality before the law.
• Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): Includes the freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and protection from arbitrary detention.
• Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law.

Limitations on Civil Liberties:

• Article 19 allows for reasonable restrictions on the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and movement in the interest of public order, sovereignty, and security.
• Article 22 allows for preventive detention for a maximum of three months without trial, under certain conditions.

3. Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution

• Article 352: National Emergency:
  National Emergency can be declared by the President of India if there is a threat to India's sovereignty, integrity, or national security due to war, external aggression, or internal disturbance. This emergency affects the entire country and leads to the suspension of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19.
• Article 356: President's Rule:
  This provision empowers the President to dissolve a state government and impose central rule if the President believes that a state government cannot function according to the provisions of the Constitution.
• Article 360: Financial Emergency:
  Financial emergency is declared if the financial stability or credit of India or any part thereof is threatened. Although this provision has never been invoked, it remains a significant power under the Constitution.

4. Historical Context of Emergency Powers in India

The 1975-77 Emergency:

• The most notable and controversial use of emergency powers in India occurred between June 25, 1975, and March 21, 1977, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
• Civil Liberties Suspended: Fundamental rights such as the right to move the court for the enforcement of personal liberties (habeas corpus) were suspended, and political opponents were arrested.

The Judicial Response:

• The ADM Jabalpur Case (1976) upheld the suspension of the right to move to court during the Emergency, which led to widespread criticism.
• Post-Emergency, the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) affirmed the "basic structure" of the Constitution, ensuring that even an Emergency could not violate the core tenets of the Constitution.

5. The Suspension of Civil Liberties During Emergencies

Suspension of Rights:

• During a National Emergency, Article 358 allows the suspension of Article 19 (freedom of speech and assembly).
• Article 359 empowers the President to suspend other fundamental rights except those related to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
• Article 21 is non-suspendable: The right to life and liberty cannot be suspended even during an emergency, which is a critical safeguard for civil liberties.

Case Study: The 1975 Emergency:

• The suspension of fundamental rights under the 1975 Emergency led to mass arrests, censorship of the media, and political oppression.
• Habeas Corpus was suspended, and the government detained many political leaders without trial, resulting in significant violations of civil liberties.

6. The Role of the Judiciary in Protecting Civil Liberties During Emergencies

Judicial Oversight:

• The judiciary plays an essential role in balancing civil liberties and emergency powers.
• Under Article 32, individuals can directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Judicial Review During Emergencies:

• The Supreme Court's role during emergencies has evolved, especially after the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973).
• This case declared that the "basic structure" of the Constitution could not be altered, even by an amendment.

In the Post-Emergency Era, the courts have actively worked to restore civil liberties, such as in the Minerva Mills Case (1980), which reasserted the primacy of fundamental rights.
 

Judicial Case Studies on Civil Liberties During Emergencies

1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
   • Importance: The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This decision is significant in understanding how civil liberties are protected even in times of emergency. It was one of the most important cases regarding the scope and limitation of constitutional amendments and the protection of Fundamental Rights.
   • Relevancy to Emergency Powers: The Court ruled that the basic structure doctrine includes Fundamental Rights as a part of the basic structure, meaning that even during an emergency, the basic rights cannot be suspended permanently.
      
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
   • Importance: This case was significant in interpreting Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that personal liberty under Article 21 is not just restricted to the physical body but includes a broader understanding of liberty. Furthermore, the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable and not arbitrary.
      
   • Relevance to Emergency Powers: This case strengthened the protection of personal liberty during emergencies. The ruling made it clear that even in times of emergency, personal liberties cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
      
3. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) (Habeas Corpus Case)
   • Importance: During the 1975 Emergency, this case is one of the most controversial in the context of civil liberties. The Supreme Court upheld the suspension of habeas corpus (right to challenge unlawful detention) during the Emergency. It ruled that if a proclamation of Emergency is in place, the government could deprive an individual of personal liberty without judicial intervention.
   • Relevance to Emergency Powers: This case demonstrated the extent to which emergency powers can override civil liberties. However, this judgment was widely criticized for its failure to protect individual rights during a time when civil liberties were under severe threat.
      
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
   • Importance: In this case, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution, which sought to limit the fundamental rights and gave more power to the government. The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and held that any amendment affecting Part III (Fundamental Rights) cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
   • Relevance to Emergency Powers: This case emphasized that emergency powers should not be used to diminish the core of fundamental rights. It protected the balance between emergency powers and civil liberties, reaffirming that the Constitution provides safeguards for civil liberties even in crisis situations.
      
5. Bhagalpur Blinding Case (1980s)
   • Importance: In the Bhagalpur Blinding Case, police officers were accused of blinding individuals in Bhagalpur (Bihar) in an attempt to extract confessions. The Supreme Court of India, after extensive hearings, held that such actions were a gross violation of fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
   • Relevance to Emergency Powers: This case is important for understanding the abuse of power during times when civil liberties are compromised. Even though this occurred after the emergency period, it highlights the need for protecting fundamental rights from abuse, which can occur during both regular governance and periods of emergency.
      
6. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
   • Importance: This case revolved around the Bank Nationalization Act and the question of whether nationalization violated the right to property under Article 19. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to property was protected under Article 31, but the scope of property rights was limited by law in the interest of public welfare.
      
   • Relevance to Emergency Powers: While not directly related to emergency powers, this case can be seen as reinforcing the idea that fundamental rights can be subject to reasonable restrictions under certain conditions, including during periods of emergency.
     
      

7. Comparative Perspectives on Emergency Powers

   Emergency Powers in Other Democracies:

   • Compare how emergency powers are handled in other democratic countries such as the USA, France, and the UK.
   • The USA has invoked the Patriot Act after the 9/11 attacks, expanding surveillance powers, which has raised concerns about the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

   India's Unique Approach:

   • Unlike many Western democracies, India's Constitution contains more explicit safeguards regarding the suspension of civil liberties.
   • For example, Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) cannot be suspended during an emergency, unlike the US system, where some rights can be curtailed for national security.
    

8. The Delicate Balance: Security vs. Civil Liberties

   National Security vs. Civil Liberties:

   • In times of national emergency, governments often argue that curbing civil liberties is necessary to maintain national security.
   • The challenge, however, is ensuring that emergency powers do not permanently infringe upon fundamental freedoms.

   Case Study: The COVID-19 Pandemic:

   • The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of lockdowns and restrictions that limited personal freedoms, but also posed a public health crisis.
   • Government actions, including surveillance and quarantines, raised questions about balancing public health and civil liberties during emergencies.

9. Safeguards in the Indian Constitution

   Article 358 & 359: Limiting the Scope of Emergency:

   • While Article 358 allows suspension of Article 19 during a National Emergency, Article 359 requires that fundamental rights, except Article 21, can be suspended only through a Presidential Proclamation.

   Judicial Review Mechanisms:

   • The judicial review under Article 32 ensures that the courts can intervene if emergency powers are misused, thus acting as a check on executive actions.

   Role of Parliament:

   • Parliamentary oversight is a significant safeguard to prevent the abuse of emergency powers.
   • The Supreme Court and Parliament work in tandem to ensure that civil liberties are not unduly restricted.
      

10. Future Challenges in Balancing Civil Liberties and Emergency Powers

    Increasing Threats:

    • The rise of global terrorism, cyber threats, and environmental crises may challenge the delicate balance between emergency powers and civil liberties in the future.

    Technology and Surveillance:

    • The growing role of surveillance technologies and their use by governments during emergencies may lead to privacy concerns and greater restrictions on individual freedoms.

Conclusion
Summary:
The Indian Constitution provides a framework for protecting civil liberties while granting emergency powers in times of national crises. However, these powers must be used judiciously to ensure that they do not infringe upon the core values of individual freedoms and democracy.

Final Thoughts:
A careful balance is needed between national security and civil liberties to safeguard both. The Constitution of India provides mechanisms such as judicial review and legislative oversight to protect civil liberties even in times of emergency.