Criticism of the Emergency Provisions

The emergency provisions—namely, National Emergency (Article 352), President's Rule (Article 356), and Financial Emergency (Article 360)—have been widely criticized for concentrating excessive power in the Centre. Critics argue that these provisions can be misused to suppress dissent, override State autonomy, and curtail Fundamental Rights.

Judicial interventions, especially following the Emergency period of 1975-77, have attempted to limit these powers, yet the inherent vagueness in their language leaves room for broad interpretation. Such criticisms highlight the ongoing tension between safeguarding national security and preserving democratic principles.

Ongoing debates call for a more balanced approach to emergency governance that better protects civil liberties while ensuring effective management of crises.