Criticism of Emergency Provisions

From the very beginning, the Emergency Provisions (Part XVIII, Articles 352–360) were considered a double-edged sword.

Some members of the Constituent Assembly strongly criticised their inclusion:

Main Criticisms

1. Federalism destroyed: The federal character would collapse → Union becomes all-powerful.
2. Concentration of power: State powers (both Centre & units) would lie in the hands of Union executive.
3. Presidential dictatorship: President could virtually become a dictator.
4. Loss of financial autonomy: States’ economic independence would be nullified.
5. Fundamental Rights diluted: FRs become meaningless, undermining democracy itself.

Famous Voices of Dissent

• H.V. Kamath:
  • Feared a “totalitarian police state”.
  • Rights and liberties of citizens would be in continuous jeopardy.
  • Peace under Emergency would be like the “peace of the grave, the void of the desert.”
  • Warned: India may become a democracy only in name.
• K.T. Shah:
  • Called it a “chapter of reaction and retrogression.”
  • Saw two dangerous trends:
    1. To arm the Centre against the States.
    2. To arm the Government against the People.
  • Predicted that only the name of democracy would remain, not the substance.
• T.T. Krishnamachari:
  • Saw it as a “constitutional dictatorship”.
• H.N. Kunzru:
  • Focused on financial emergency → said it would be a serious threat to financial autonomy of states.

Voices in Defence

• Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar:
  • Called emergency provisions the “very life-breath of the Constitution.”
• Mahabir Tyagi:
  • Saw them as a “safety-valve”—necessary for protecting Constitution in extraordinary situations.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
  • Defended inclusion but admitted possibility of misuse.
  • Said: “I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes.”

👉 This shows Ambedkar’s pragmatism—he knew that provisions can be misused, but without them the Constitution may fail in real crises.

Analytical Balance

• On one hand → Critics feared dictatorship, centralisation, and suppression of democracy.
• On the other hand → Proponents argued these powers were essential safety tools for survival of the nation.

👉 Reality: Both sides were right.

• The 1975–77 Emergency confirmed the critics’ fears.
• But the 1962 China war and 1971 Indo-Pak war showed why such provisions are indispensable.