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 17

a. 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’.


  • Ashlin johny   -Posted on 31 Jan 19
    Very helpful

Post your comment / Share knowledge

Enter the code shown above:
(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above image, reload the page to generate a new one.)