What is the difference between Articles 358 and 359?
Q. Which of the following is/are true?
1) Article 358 extends to all those fundamental rights whose enforcement is suspended.
2) Article 358 automatically suspends the fundamental rights under article 19 as soon as the emergency is declared.
3) Article 358 extends to entire country.
4) Article 358 enables the state to make any law or take any executive action inconsistent with fundamental rights under article 19.- Published on 27 Feb 17a. Only 1, 2 and 3
b. Only 2, 3 and 4
c. Only 1, 3 and 4
d. All of the above
ANSWER: Only 2, 3 and 4
Differences between Articles 358 and 359 -
(a) Article 358 is confined to Fundamental Rights under Article 19 only.
(b) Article 359 extends to all those Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by the Presidential Order.
(c) Article 358 automatically suspends the fundamental rights under Article 19 as soon as the emergency is declared.
(d) Article 359 does not automatically suspend any Fundamental Right. It only empowers the president to suspend the enforcement of the specified Fundamental Rights.
(e) Article 358 operates only in case of External Emergency (that is, when the emergency is declared on the grounds of war or external aggression) and not in the case of Internal Emergency (i.e., when the Emergency is declared on the ground of armed rebellion).
(f) Article 359, on the other hand, operates in case of both External Emergency as well as Internal Emergency.
(g) Article 358 suspends Fundamental Rights under Article 19 for the entire duration of Emergency.
(h) Article 359 suspends the enforcement of Fundamental Rights for a period specified by the president which may either be the entire duration of Emergency or a shorter period.
(i) Article 358 extends to the entire country whereas Article 359 may extend to the entire country or a part of it.
(j) Article 358 suspends Article 19 completely while Article 359 does not empower the suspension of the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21.
(k) Article 358 enables the State to make any law or take any executive action inconsistent with Fundamental Rights under Article 19.
(l) Article 359 enables the State to make any law or take any executive action inconsistent with those Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by the Presidential Order.
- There is also a similarity between Article 358 and Article 359. Both provide immunity from challenge to only those laws which are related with the Emergency and no other laws.
- Also, the executive action taken only under such a law is protected by both.
Declaration of national Emergency -
- National Emergency has been proclaimed 3 times so far - in 1962, 1971 and 1975.
- The first proclamation of National Emergency was issued in October 1962 on account of Chinese aggression in the NEFA (North - East Frontier Agency - now Arunachal Pradesh), and was in force till January 1968.
- Hence, a fresh proclamation was not needed at the time of war against Pakistan in 1965.
- The second proclamation of national emergency was made in December 1971 in the wake of attack by Pakistan.
- Even when this Emergency was in operation, a third proclamation of National Emergency was made in June 1975.
- Both the second and third proclamations were revoked in March 1977.
- The first two proclamations (1962 and 1971) were made on the ground of ‘external aggression’,while the third proclamation (1975) was made on the ground of ‘internal disturbance’, that is, certain persons have been inciting the police and the armed forces against the discharge of their duties and their normal functioning.
- The Emergency declared in 1975 (internal emergency) proved to be the most controversial
- There was widespread criticism of the misuse of Emergency powers.
- The Janta Party came to power in 1977 and appointed the Shah Commission to investigate the circumstances that warranted the declaration of an Emergency in 1975.
- The commission did not justify the declaration of the Emergency.
- Hence, the 44th Amendment Act was enacted in 1978 to introduce a number of safeguards against the misuse of Emergency provisions.
