Despite the entire country being in a suspended animation with the bureaucracy enjoying powers unprecedented in recent times and a Union government with a robust mandate, the political situation in the country is extremely stable devoid of any aspersions about the Union government trying to shift dynamics by invoking the Emergency as seen in Hungary. This is largely because the lacunae in the Emergency provisions provided for in the Indian Constitution were plugged in with commendable alacrity by promulgating the 44th Amendment Act First and foremost,the word “internal disturbance” was understood to be too vague and having a very wide connotation for being the basis to declare an emergency upon. To address this it was substituted  with the word “armed rebellion” largely exhausting the future possibility of proclamation of an emergency without credible basis.

The Emergency in 1975 was proclaimed by the President solely on the advice of  Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had not deemed it necessary to consult her cabinet before undertaking such a drastic step. By the 44th Constitutional Amendment written advice of the cabinet ministers for proclaiming an emergency was made compulsory. Thus mitigating against an ill advised decision of the Prime Minister to the President.  

This executive supremacy which the Constituent Assembly deemed pertinent in order to tackle nefarious forces of “disintegration and disorder”  was given a further thrust by the 38th Amendment of 1975 which excluded proclamations of emergency from the scope of judicial review. This amendment was nullified by the 44th Amendment 1978.

Furthermore, to accentuate power of the legislature so as to allow it to check the executive action, the 44th amendment also reduced the time duration for ratification of the parliament  from 2 months to 1 month. The legislative mandate for promulgation of emergency was made for a special majority instead of simple majority. Hence, a majority of two thirds of the total membership of the house is now required.

Parliament was also given a say in the revocation of the emergency. Prior to the 44th Amendment 1978 only the President had powers to revoke the emergency however the new provision provided for revocation by the Lok Sabha if it passed a resolution disproving the Emergency. If the parliament is not in session, the house would have to be summoned if one tenth of the total members of the house give a written notice to the Speaker or the President. 

The gross violation of civil rights ensued as a virtue of Article 358 which provides for automatic suspension of Article 19 of the constitution and Article 359 of the Constitution which prohibited an aggrieved person from approaching Courts for enforcement of their fundamental rights.

To eliminate the suspension of civil rights for extraneous reasons under the guise of emergency the 44th Constitutional Amendment restricted the scope of Article 358 in a twin manner-

a. The six fundamental rights can be suspended only when emergency was proclaimed under war or external aggression 

b. Only those laws related to emergency are deemed to be immune from judicial review 

The article also restricted the scope of article 359 in a twin manner-

a. President cannot suspend the right to move to court for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by   article 20 and 21.

b. Executive action only under laws related to emergency were immune from being challenged in courts.

Article 356 has also been a potent weapon in the Central governments arsenal against the state government’s in order to tame and subjugate opposition government’s. 

Article 356 provides for the President’s rule in case of “failure of constitutional machinery” again, a phrase having a very wide connotation, hence making it susceptible to misuse. The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the President in invoking article 356  final and conclusive placing it outside the purview of judicial review. Thus it became a common practice for the Central government to invoke presidential rule in states having a different government in order to take the governance of the state in their own hands.

The Court laid down a number of guidelines to curb this malpractice of the Center dismissing a state government and upheld the federal structure enshrined in the Constitution in the celebrated case of  S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1990)-

(a.)The ruling laid down the law that the only way to determine support enjoyed by a particular state government would be by means of a floor test.

(b) The Court ruled that the validity of a proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.

(c.)The court said that the only time the President shall have unconditional powers to dissolve a state government is when there is a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery.

The apex court similarly in the Minerva Mills case (1980) held that proclamation of National Emergency could be challenged in court on grounds of malafide or that the declaration was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant facts and is absurd or perverse. 

Hence, the provision inserted by the Constituent Assembly in order to bestow the executive with extraordinary powers realising the political and social realities of an infant democracy in a post war ravaged world order has been altered and amended over the course of seven decades largely by virtue of the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978.

The Court, realizing how it failed  in its responsibility of upholding the civil rights of  the citizens in the infamous ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case, adopted a progressive view, mandating the provision of judicial review. Thus it has been ensured that the Central government has enough legal sanction to instruct the states if such an exigency ever arises which compels it to practice it’s superior power while providing sufficient safeguards against misuse by the executive on consonance with India’s quasi federal structure.