Q.“The Emergency and the period around it can be described as a period of constitutional crisis.” Analyse the main reason behind this statement.

The statement refers to the period of the Emergency (1975-77) when the government suspended fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and imposed severe censorship on the press. The judiciary, particularly the High Courts, was prevented from hearing cases related to preventive detention, and the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Kesavananda Bharati (which established the basic structure doctrine) was effectively bypassed.

The main reason behind this constitutional crisis was the erosion of judicial review — the power of courts to examine the validity of executive and legislative actions. During the Emergency:

• The government passed the 42nd Amendment, which sought to curtail the power of judicial review by placing constitutional amendments beyond judicial scrutiny and giving Parliament unlimited amending power.
• The executive used Article 352 to declare a national emergency, and the courts were largely unable to check the misuse of this power.
• The famous ADM Jabalpur case (1976) held that even the right to life could be suspended during the Emergency, effectively making the executive the sole judge of its own actions. …

The statement that the Emergency and the period around it was a “constitutional crisis” is not an exaggeration — it captures a moment when the basic architecture of India’s Constitution came under severe strain. To understand why, you have to look at what the Constitution was meant to do: create a government that is powerful enough to govern, but limited enough to protect liberty, federalism, and the rule of law. The Emergency, especially the nineteen months between June 1975 and March 1977, pushed against every one of those limits.

The most immediate reason for calling it a crisis lies in the suspension of fundamental rights. Article 19 — which guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and movement — was automatically suspended when the Emergency was proclaimed under Article 352. But the government went further: it also suspended the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 359). That meant a citizen could not even file a petition claiming their rights had been violated. For a Constitution that begins with a chapter on fundamental rights, this was a profound break. The courts, which are supposed to be the guardians of those rights, were effectively shut out.

The crisis also showed itself in the relationship between the centre and the states. Federalism — the division of power between the Union and the states — is a key feature of the Constitution. During the Emergency, the central government used its powers under Article 356 to dismiss state governments that were not from the ruling party. Opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Maharashtra were brought under President’s Rule. This was not a new provision, but its use during the Emergency was seen as a political weapon rather than a constitutional safeguard. The federal balance, already tilted towards the centre, was pushed to the point where states lost all meaningful autonomy.

Then there is the role of the judiciary. The most famous case from this period is the ADM Jabalpur case (1976), where the Supreme Court held that even the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended during the Emergency. The majority judgment said that a person’s right to approach the court for habeas corpus — the most ancient remedy against illegal detention — did not exist when the Emergency was in force. Only one judge, Justice H.R. Khanna, dissented, arguing that the Constitution did not give the state the power to take away life or liberty without legal authority. That dissent became a symbol of judicial courage, but the fact remains that the highest court of the land had, for a time, refused to protect the most basic human right.