What are criticisms of Emergency Provisions?
Q. Which of the following is/are true?
1) Critics claim that emergency provisions undermine the Fundamental Rights.
2) President becomes dictator by emergency provisions as per the critics.- Published on 27 Feb 17a. Only 1
b. Only 2
c. Both 1 and 2
d. Neither 1 nor 2
ANSWER: Both 1 and 2
Some members of the Constituent Assembly criticized the incorporation of emergency provisions in the Constitution on the following grounds -
(a) The federal character of the Constitution will be destroyed and the Union will become all.
(b) powerful.
(c) The powers of the State - both the Union and the units - will entirely be concentrated in the hands of the Union executive.
(d) The President will become a dictator.
(e) The financial autonomy of the state will be nullified.
(f) Fundamental rights will become meaningless and, as a result, the democratic foundations of the Constitution will be destroyed.
- However, there were also protagonists of the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly.
- Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar labelled them as ‘the very life-breath of the Constitution’.
- Mahabir Tyagi opined that they would work as a ‘safety-valve’ and thereby help in the maintenance of the Constitution.
- While defending the emergency provisions in the Constituent Assembly, Dr B. R. Ambedkar also accepted the possibility of their misuse.
- He observed, ‘I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes’.
