Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Emergency 2

    Uploaded by

    mehak sra
    18 views15 pages
    reading

    Original Title

    Emergency-2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    reading

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    18 views15 pages

    Emergency 2

    Uploaded by

    mehak sra
    reading

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    17 EMERGENCY PROVISIONS ne PART XVIII, ARTICLES 352-360 The term ‘emergency’ may be defined as oticun Sterol arising suddenly ahd demanding immediate action by public authorities under powers specially granted to them by the Constitution or otherwise to meet such exigencies’, ' The founding fathers of our Constitution felt that aordinary situations could arise under which it might e vA be possible for the normal scheme of the Constitution to function an necessary to suspend the operation of cértain parts or provisions to protect the independence and the security of the nation and to safeguard the Constitution and the democratic system. Dr. Ambedkar clai that the Indian federation was mae and unlike any ee inasmuch as in times of emergency jt could convert itself int6 an entirely unitary State. The positi held by the Su; Court in Gulam Sarwar v. Unio1 ia (AIR 1967 SC 1335). . riefly, the Emergency provisions of the Constitution envisage two kinds of emergencies, viz. (f) a national emergency under article 352 due to threat of war, external aggression or armed rebellion and (jefinancial emergency under article 360. The third kind of situation, that is, the one under article 356 arising from a failure of the constitutional machinery in any particular State and necessitating uid -Ansuata es seuuiui saceaTesenieereceieanna: 298 OUR CONSTITUTION * President's rule, though included under the Part on ‘Emergency Provisions’, may not strictly speaking be considered an emergency situation. Proclamation of National Emergency Article 352 provides that if'the President, after receiving a written communication of a Cabinet decision, is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India,or. any part thereof is threatened by war, external aggression or armed rebellion, he may issue a proclamation of emergency “Tor the wholeof India or part thereof. He may also issue dierent ptoclanranons an Giderent gtoundes Every Proclamation of Emergency is required to be laid before each House of Parliament, and is to cease to operate at the expiration of one month from the date of its issue by the President unless in the meantime it has been approved by resolutions of both the Houses. However, once approved by Parliament, the Proclamation may continue in operation for Six months at a time unless revoked by the President earlier y a subsequent Proclamation. Resolutions approving the Proclamation of Emergency or its continuance have to be passed by either House of Parliament by a majority of the total membership and not less than two-thirds of those present and voting. Also, if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving the proclamation or its continuance, it shali be revoked forthwith. If notice of a resolution signed by not less than one tenth of the total membership is given to the President/Speaker, a special sitting of the House shall be held within 14 days to consider it. Flicle 353) ith arti K ad with e365. providés that once Emefgency is proclaimed, the executive power of the Union exten Fving of directions to any State in regard to, the exefEise oF the executive powers of the State and failure to confiply_with the directions WOU corettmnecenomstrjust- fication for imposition of President's rule under article 356., During the operation of Emergency, the legislative EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 299 power of Parliament also extends to conferring powers and imposing duties by law on Union authorities in matters not otherwise included in the Union List. Under article 354, the application of provisions relating to distribution of revenues (articles fo 279) may be wsinbly: model dyeing Deng oS ol of Emergency. Article provides for the suspension of the provisions of article 19 during emergencies while article 359 authorises the President to suspend by order the enforcement of all the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution except the rights of protection in respect of conviction for offences and protection of life and liberty in articles 20 and 21. The effect of the exercise of powers under articles 358 andl 999 tat nt oul the leg eo avid hat not only the legislature but also the executive can interfere with the fundamental rights of individuals eee ee Ee od y law passed under articles 358 and 359 in order to bé valid must contain a recital to the effect that it is in relation to ype Tamation of Emergency in operation. Also, all such laws shall cease to have effect to the extent of incompetency under the Fundamental Rights as soon as the Emergency ceases or the Presidential order ceases to have effect. There have been three proclamations of national emergency in India—in Detober 1962 at the time of the Chinese aggression, in December 1971 in the wake of the war with Pakistan and in Jui on grounds of internal disturbance. The first proclamation issued in October 1962 continued till January 1968. The second proclamation issued in December 1971 lasted till March 1977. The thir proclamation issued in June 1975 while the second was still in operation was also revoked in March 1977 with the second. Since the, there has been no proclamation of emergency. During the periods of Emergency, extraordinary powers «ere assumed by the Union Government under several laws and constitutional amendments passed by Parliament. . EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 301 300 OUR CONSTITUTION i 1 i Punjab (AIR There was widespread criticism of the misuse of powers articles 21 “a eae 2 ad eed ee during the period of internal emergency. In the general 1964 SC 381) the Court tried to Sanaa elections that followed, the ruling Congress(i) under the rights of the citizens wit ie it Wh seding that if Part Is of the security of the State. While conceding (ee ee) oy rr Security is in peril, individual rights must give way fefore the 441 tui }, state of to the State, the Court said: emergency could be declared under article 352 throughout How Tong the Proclamation of Emergency should the entire country only. The Amendment made it possible to «continue and what restrictions should be imposed on coverontyapartof the country, as may be deemed necessary, “the fundamental rights of citizens during the pendency under emergency. Also, the provisions of article 352 were of the emergency, are matters which must inevitably be made more stringent in 1978-79 by the Constitution (4th left to the executive hecause the executive hos vi , 1978 which came into effect from 20 June requirements of the situation and the effect of 1979.26 prevent the misuse of emergency provisions, the + compulsive factors which operate during periods of “words armed alien were substituted for ‘internal grave crises. disturbance’,a@ritten communication of the decision by . the Union Cabinet was made an essential pre condition for But, the Court also held that it had the power to judge the issue of a Proclamation by the President, ang-the entire and ‘examine the validity of emergency Tegislation under Procedure for emergency provisions was streamlined to which persons were detained with mala fide intentions or, ensure dependence on approval of Parliament, particularly - under exceSsive delegation of powers to the executive. a” of the Lok Sabha. fe Amendment made it possible for the another case, the Court upheld the validity of the statute President to modify the proclamation without rovoking it which invested the ‘executive with drastic powers and subject to approval of Parliament. Jt, the Amendment observéd that the power fo detain without trial was basically confjed the suspension of arle 19 only To situations of Ja HEWUVE Act ROT subject To judicial reviews Meas oy war or external aggression, i.c.where emergency was Maharashtra v. Pr zgiri (AIR 1966 SC proclaimed om intenal a ‘on internal grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, 424), the Court upheld the liherty of a-detenuto-send his freedoms under article 19 could not be taken away. Also, the book outside the jail for publication since there was no nexus same amendment laid down thayfinder no circumstances between the Government order preventing it and the could the enforcement of rights under articles 20 and 21 be Pu of the enforcement of emer rules. ‘stand denied even during an Emergency. was reiterated in K, Ananda Nambiar v. Chief Secretary (ATR ss “Several cases involving emergency provisions were 1966 SC 657) where Justice Gajendragadkar asserted that + \sf% decided by the Supreme Court before the 1978 amendment. even during eration of emer in considering the (ys These dealt with matters arising during periods of the first effect of a Presidential order s i ent of and second Emergencies proclaimed in 1962 and 1971,2he fundamental rights, the order should be strictly construed Court upheld the Presidential order suspending the right of = =e aa oe a citizen to move the Court to enfores the 3 Molin Chowdhury w: Chief Commissioner, AIR 1964 SC 173, 2, Sadhu Singh w. Delhi Administration, AIR 1966 SC 98 rovisions of —~ 302 OUR CONSTITUTION in favour of the citizen's fundamental rights. In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), it was held that the order of detention must prima facie be proper, that “maintenance oF law and order”.could not be equated with “maintenanceof publiorder ‘and that action under Defence of Iifdia Rules would be valid only if taken in the “interests of public order” and not merely “in aid of law and order”. While protecting the paramount interest of the security of the State during emergency, citizen’s rights to freedom could not be taken away without the existence of justifying necessity specified in Defence of India Rules. On this ground, the Court declared a detention “clearly and plainly mala fide" In PL. Lakhanpal v. Untion of India (AIR 1967 SC 1507), ‘the Supreme Court overruled the decision in the Sadfiu Singit case and held that principles of natural justice should apply, to the decision to review an order of detention. The Court went further in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh (AIR, 1967 SC 1170) when it said: All executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the authority of law to support it, and the terms of Article 358 do not detract from that rule...Article 358 does not purport to invest the State with arbitrary authority to take action to the prejudice of citizens and others; it merely provides that so long as the proclamation of emergency subsists laws may be enacted, and executive action may be taken in pursuance of lawful authority, which if the provisions of Article 19 were ‘operative would have been invalid. . . In Mohd. Yaqub v. State of J&K (ARR 1968 SC 765), the Supreme Court clearly observed that there was no scope for judicial review to find out any nexus between exercise 0! power under article 359 and security of India in view of the suspension of the enforcement of fundamental rights in the interests of the security of the State by the President. In Bhut = T) ©. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala, 1966 SC 1925. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 303 Nath v, State of W Bengal (AIR -1974 SC-806)-also;the Court erined to hold the continuance of emergency void~fusice (Ver Said that the argument that there was no real emergency relterated in Collector of Hyderabad v. Ibrahim and Co. (AIR 1970 SC 1275). The Court said The executive order immune from attack is only that order which the State was competent, but for the provisions contained in article 19, to make. Executive action...which is otherwise invalid is not immune from attack, merely because a proclamation of emergency is in operation when it is taken.” icle i car or omitted to pe done during emergency could not be challenged even after thleemergency was over on the ground of the concerned emergency law having violated article 19.’ “There appeared to be a considerable shift in the approach of the Supreme Court to cases of violation of Fundamental Rights vis a vis emergency provisions arising during the proclamation of internal emergency (1975-1977). Thus, in the Habeas Corpus case, the Court refused to interfere in ma(fers OF detention oF p persons as it believed that the intention clearly was to keep preventive detention controlled exclusively by the executive. Detenus could not move any Court for the writ of Habeas Corpus if a prima facie valid detention order existed? In Union of India v. Bhanudas (AIR 1977 SC 1027) again, the Court held that: liberty under articles 19, 21. and'22 could be suspended during national emergency due to Presidential Orders under article 359. Most of these Court verdicts lost validity after the 44th amendment inter 1 Mathan Singhs case, op. cit: Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106; A. Cooperative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 958. 2. Additional District Magistrate v, Shiokant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207. 304 OUR CoNsTITUTION alia amended articles 352, 358 and 359. . In the Minerva Mills case, it was held that the judiciary could act if it was established that the Union Government acted mala fide or on irrelevant or no facts. The remedy otherwise could be only political. Avmvatter like the satisfaction of the President is beyond the Court. Only if it was shown that there was, in fact, no satisfaction at all, or the satisfaction was absurd, perverse or mall fide, the exercise of power would be unconstitutional. Courts could certainly act under their power of limited judicial review in such a case.1 Itis the constitutional duty of the Union to protect its States, against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution (article 355), _ Ifon receipt ofa rt from the Governor or otherwise, the President ‘Psatshed tat Covommenter Reset be carried on in accordance with the Constitution or that the constitutional machinery has failed, he may issue a prodiamation taking overany of thefunctions and powers of the State Government inctuding-those of the Governor and other $i ities (article 356). The satisfaction of the President, of course, means the satisfaction of the Union Government and President's rule is actually, rule by the Union Government. It is mmportant hatte 356-6 read with-aticles 255, 256, 257,353 and 365. This is usually not done. Insofar a5 article 355 speaks of the duty of the Union to ensure that government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, it is obvious that article 356 is not the only one fo take care of a situation of failure of constitutional machinery. The Union can also act in matters of ‘external aggression’ or ‘internal 1. Minerva Mili 0. Union of India, ATR 1980 SC 1789, | Courts. Ever EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 305 disturbance’ under article 355 i.e. without imposing President's rule. Article 355 can stand on its own. Also, Union Government can issue certain directions under articles 256, 257 and 353. Itis.true that article 356 clearly authorises the President toissue a proclamation imposing President's rule over a State if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” but a question may be asked when can the President lawfully hold that such a situation has actually arisen. A very specific and categorical answer is contained in articl jen it says that where a State fails to comply with Union directions (under articles 256, 257 and others) “it shall be ident to hold tata situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried an in ai ce with the provisions of this Constitution”. It is @nfor that before tushing to issue a proclamation unde¥ article 356, no effort appeared to have been mad that Gy the Union ha oneal tht itcouldin discharge of tsdty der article 355 arid (ii) that the State had “failed ta comply with, or give effect to” directions. It seems in many cases recourse to 356 has been taken without keeping other provisions in view. Under the proclamation under article 356, the powers of the State Legislature may become exercisable by or on the authority of Parliament. The State Assembly may be dissolved or kept under sus The President © all other steps that may be necessary including Suspension of the operation of any constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority in the State except the High ery proclamation must cease to operate at the 2B of two months unless approved by tesalutions of the two Houses. After Parliament's approval also, a proclamation may continue for not more than six months at a time and ne pt in case of a Proclamation issued in May 1987 in respect of Punjab which 306 OUR consriTuTION was allowed to continue for five years under the Constitutiot (68th Amendment) Act, 1991 (Article 356). . During the operation of President's rule under artic? 356, Parliament may confer the legislative power of the Sta! onthe President and authorise te these powes to al icle 357). Article 356, enabling the imposition of President's rut over the States by the Union,-has been one of the mat criticized and controversial provisions of the Constitutiot Under this provision, State Gavernments have been take! over by the Union during the last years (1950-20 twice each yest Uppealton member and alta Meese a ae has been used, more often than not, for political and partis Purposes by the party in power at the Union level, usually to dismiss State Governments of parties in opposition. in the Constituent Assembly, while replying to the critics af this provision, Dr. Ambedkar had expressed the hope thatit might remain a déad Tete and-might never Be used exces as a last resort, after everything else failed. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361), the Supreme Court held that a proclamation under 35 depends ject President and the Geert cout rot substrate ttc oerrsatisfrction for that of the Président nor could it_in view of article 74(2), enquire into_the advice given to the President by the Council of Minisiess The Court, however, significantly added that if 'e satisfaction of the President was mala fide, based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or no satisfaction at all, it could interfere. Th dent's power Iys,-exercise of President's under article 356 was brought under judicial review to that it. ‘extent. ? the Court went much further: It was held fi) that the question of the State Government losing the of the House should be decided on the foot of the House and until that is done the Ministry should not be — EMERGENCY PROVISIONS 307 unseated, (ii}tMat dissolution of the Assembly by Presidential arostamation i subject to judicial eview, and (iif that if the court finds that relevant material justifying the proclamation did not exist or that mala fide was involved, it may strike it down and restore the Ministry (Bommai v. Union of India, JT (1994) 2 SC 215), 5 The Constitution Commission (NCRWG) has recommended: (1) " Article 356 should not be deleted. But it must be used sparingly and only as a remedy of the last resort and after exhausting action under other articles like 256, 257 amd 355, (2), In case of political breakdown, necessitating invoking of article 356, before issuing a proclamation thereunder, the concerned State should be given an opportunity to explain its position and redress the situation, unless the situation is such, that following the above course would not be in the interest of security of State, or defence of the country, “or for other reasons necessitating urgent action. (3) The question whether the Ministry in a State has lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly or not, should be decided only on the floor of the Assembly and nowhere else. If necessary, the Union Government should take the required steps, to enable the Legislative Assembly to meet + and freelystransact its business. The Governor should not be allowed to dismiss the Ministry so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House. It is only where a Chief Minister ‘refuses to resign after his Ministry is defeated on a motion of no-confidence, that the Governor can dismiss the State Government. In a situation of political breakdown, the Governor should explore all possibilities of having a Government enyoying majérity support in the Assembly. (4) Article 356 should be amended so as to ensure that the State Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved either by the Govemor or the President before the proclamation issued under article 356(1) has been laid before Parliament and it has had an opportunity to consider it. 308 ouR consruniOn Financial Emergency ‘The President is authorised by article 360 of the Constitution to declare by a proclamation financial emergency if he is satisfied that the financial stahility or credit of India or of any part of its territory is threatened. Such a proclamation may be revoked.or varied by a subsequent proclamation. It has to belaid before both Houses of Parliament and ceases to operate at the expiration of two months unless meanwhile approved by resolutions of the two Houses. Once approved by Parliament, unlike prociamasions under article352,it may continue: i raried During the operation of financial emergency, the executive authority of the Union extends to the giving of directions to any State to observe certain specified canons of financial propriety and such other directions that the President may find necessary or adequate. These ditections may include reduction of salaries and allowances of all those serving a State and reserving for the President's consideration all money Bills and other Bills under article 207 after these are passed by State Legislatures. The President may also direct reduction in salaries and allowances of all those serving in connection with the affairs of the Union including judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, Fortunately,-thus far, during the last 60 years of the operation of the Constitution, there has been no occasion for the promulgation of Financial Emergency. 18 SERVICES UNDER THE UNION AND THE STATES PART XIV XIVA, ARTICLES 308-3238 SERVICES inamodern democratic polity, civil services aganinetitable ingredient of the governmental apparatus. It is, in fact, the non-political and non-elected functionaries who are responsible for carrying on the administration under the direction and control of the elected representatives of the people and in accordance with rules and principles. 0 Indian bureaucracy or the civil service has been one of the most well-known in-the world. In fact, the term ‘civil service’ was first used for the employees of the East India Company who served in departments other than military. One of the earliest demands of Indian nationalist opinion was to rationalise the structure and functions of the civil service to’ provide a greater share to Indians in the administration of their country. As a result of increasing pressure and resentment in India, in 1922 the British Government finally bowed to the demand for holding multaneous Civil Service examinations in India and England. Also, from then on, the Imperial Civil Services (ICS) were to be called the Indian Civil Service (ICS). The Motilal Nehru Committee report in 1928 Economic 8PoliticalweeKLy Democratic Dilemmas: Can Democracy Do without Extraordinary Laws? Author(s): Uyjwal Kumar Singh Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 1-7. 2003, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Feb. 1-7, 2003), pp. 437-440 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: https://www Jstor.org/stable/4413157 JSTOR is « not-for-profit service that Tange of content in's trusted digit Peclltate new forms of scholarship. For more infort researchers, and students discover, use. and bulld upon » wide ‘Formation technology and tools to increase productivity and tion about JSTOR. please contect support@)stor org, Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Condi sof Use, available at Itps'//ebout jstor org/terms Economic and Politics! Weekly 1s collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend tceess to Beonomle and Politica! Weekly e er “Tul coten downlode rom 20241 10 060803 Bee) 141057 +0000 ‘Awe sabet obs abut or rome an course 1 exerdiary Las of st vacenion, whether ough Democratic Dilemmas — arene tots cea i jin and the US, and others ‘with a self- a Denese De without Senter af aahering 10 the ule of law : ? ml iba. ner ueneineaial Fp snes hve puted euch armen is traordinary laws before and after pene arse ee oe in made ery Eel gover inant OY nse consan me sn ile sventive detention laws oon iran ‘of the debate, 10 see how they define ariOTis str ence” reset ynditions: , \veas made necessary by social Cor democratic politics and what constitutes the idea of the or aT es and therefore undemocratic and the extraordinary. tov an eset pa of gover i ite sie Sm ndependent India wa Konan Sint in various debates on exraonsinacyiaws. | mi pee yn, Kune Son seb nua oe | Te hector of isnuefistinethatexrordinry “hough the Terorist and Diuptve rape omen which Pate Chat Tawa figured inthe cection manifesto. Actives (Prevention) Act, 1985 to the referstoasthe eld forms of the new sate o's patel pay The conasing. m S001 The pola! clare which one 355 ‘ayn in which Prevention of Terorism Hie lemma of democracys) This India i characterised by the persistence ‘Ordinance (POT) figured in the elec: dilemma was voiced most recenly by of a ponderous and wbiguitous bureau- tion manifesto of Bharatiya Janata Pary racy and, an overbearing politieal class (GIP)in UtarPradeshassembly elections which distances itself from the “people (February 2002), and POTA and other Through its atitude of disdain and pater extraordinary laws Figured in Jammu and talism towards them. The model which Kashmie assembly elections (September the statesmen in independent India placed ‘October 2002) is, however, striking. The before themselves sought 10 replicate the carlier inclusions, asin the ease of Ter- ‘western iberal model Colonia infivences rons and Disupive Activities (Preven- fon the sysem of governance persisted, ton) Act (TADA), however. The Constitution of indepen figuring of POTA in J and K elections, dent Inia ths, hedged in individual ib- were inthe nature of admission of ins erty and freedom with several qualifica- tee anda subsequent promise towards i tions, becoming what was claimed by the Sevaioe Te figuration 9 POTO in ‘iting Civ Lieres Counc a reese Sutement Submited tm August 1957 to rea —— " bp | eichcmessin tna a | . Detention and Esile. asthe “only demo. ‘capufeteaueimmnly. at | wip down heist tomer county Inthe wor whose Siler toe were rect saps inae'eliy ot fondamentelte esis aaa the UN Commitee on Arbitrary Arrests, the terms of this resolution aniculsied uncenainty, 4 gilemma which kepL alive without trial in times of peace and in 3 with such confidence and justification, iiber- situation which is natin the nature of an Seeking 10 obliterate the diemmas, ten sionsand contests which had characterised the unfolding of Indian democracy since sified for the other? Strategies t intr terorism had to be in 8 icvingabarmony between human di fiand the cours argercollective, emergercy’* ~~ e lemma hod been, “Oming ospecificcontestsihat obtained Srtculatedin I986by Rajni Kotharinthe| atthe ime tthe emergence ofthe Indian & independent fomofthe atop-down| tatonsatibeny didnotemaina primary ‘A wih all newly emergent mations. « | bureaucrat paradigm of | political or social eOhcem Although the predomi it-ngia was wih | conicing publi fairs wih a bttom Contin gurantee diva! pol establishing poli social stability | up démocratie-polticalo& panicipatory-| calrights and civil liberies ~ eg, freedom, ical development through demo-- | democraii process ‘Masses, Classes and| of speech, thought, association and move. eae aRUNORLLTTEEC nae Rajni meni, almostall these rights were severely em eae |e See Mert, BG Rept non ainaatenghawecsce ‘capacity to work through democratic in- suggesting a movement “beyond the tural community on the one hand, sed Peter een a oe ase aah rsa rae ea _Sohimaeaaeaes Sires camisetas ey "ese goals, the manner in.which these It may be pointed out Inthe ine. Dipoil canbe ly laws are not a phenomenon confined i mati he Source of authorta been riddled by what has been referred to developing societies, Most sates have — ly or Economic and Political Weekly February 1, 2003 437 ‘This omen downleaded fo 2024110108 on Sun 03 Dew 2029 14 10:57 +00 0 ‘ius ject hie abe or penn shecxssull.gaveramenthartthe respon aise silty toregulatethese rights Atthe time ‘atm be eno noe gp co Traming the Constitution, some mem: of the dj ‘he rane of this temo heconaiventassemly suggested “loraion tno io anesthe elton thatthe possibility of engendering class or ship between democracy and extraordi- ‘communal hatredshovldalsobe arestain- nary laws in erm of simple compatibii ing condition, This qualification was, bok atthe ncompatibili Devceancemalreenseh tons ‘lan inet polio sue _Trasad Mookerjx argued tha hiEEXBEY- they define democratic polis. nd Sone calgcutamaag fensnne pt So —eipreadion ST STON peat a perry in aT ERT. power may be consirued a clas of m= ———_——__— To pie gece Peking we ta > tn siteen, caiee aceon he Debate rights felt that class and religion related ‘While the contexts and contents of the sss had beer” as th Jblica- debate have Been different each time. ‘Ua, ous defer mate: ‘constituted diverse strands, if one were 10. Soke pein aie cammciny decmealon i, Wetay Go Gurpret a ‘Mahajan Ideniy especialy the oficial arguments in favour ‘and Rights, OUP, 1998). of extraocdinat can identify ban certain Gentex Geant elemens. Sede otal seth 1 a ich comes u ‘starkly when apologists for extraoninary Jaws argue fortis that somehow the.peed We not i Ce ET Ne ‘ersten esympmnatcel wane ffaciensnciaingabasicpolicy.| of Societies and that these os % ere ai 7 etrandinary sialon ‘Buetie Preventive Detention System) These laws are in other words, made 10 (PDS) an nesiorling-pariheladian | appear 38 necessary comecives of the Legal System (11S) 5 Patel is said to have extraordinary situations which posea threat Tee Stepan nips in his uneasiness at toitsopennes.Theexsience of such avs ‘Peroduciopamneasare which was pus: af also in a way Seen as. indicative of fant to the ideal of pial eee Sec tanany was however, ~ Tea exison ofthis argent, there Beeretty the conviction athe curail- are some whoctaim that having schlaws Trem of the bertes of a few did not and ruiacis, a Teast moe Area g besoenma Mae power fo detain is a of ml aiy-and humanely, and may yibcsctviiesof these lead to beter regimes of detention and Tila Te nies ee vse pana disturbances, the recurent labour woubes, and te fact ha a tromber of tems wader clonal laws ‘Tae being released by the cours on Tosod tht the ls were ot consistent Fim the Constitution (see Granville ‘Kasia, Woring 2 Democratic Cons tion, OUP, 199) da tight ofthe above framework of oe scion OF We Serine and he i ahich was rocved at he fevcl f policy- making and then agai 12 ‘So comscmperay coment in wich te ‘Sicmuna being. soup 10 be resolved tisseration before from knowledgeable “activists” their own research, and paiipat i 2 January 2. 2004, For more compete ‘Connecticut 06320-8300. FAX (203) 4 ft htpafwwr yale edlagrariansties 436 Beonomie IbessSares'aerimn 10:37 0009 ‘lad eye oho par AGRARIAN STUDIES, YALE UNIVERSITY [An imerdisciplinary Program in Agrarian Studies will be offering four to six Posadoctoal Fellowships tenurable from September 2004-May 2005.The Program ts desgned to maximize the intellectual links between Wester and non-Western wastice contemporary work and historical work, the social sciences and the FERS desta he context of research rural ifeandsocety Fellowships include MMitpund of -$40,000 per academic yet. Fellows must have finished the ig up the fellowship. We also encourage applications “ind “publi intellectuals" whose work on rural Hinterlands, Frontiers. Cis, and St The deadline for recelpt of the frst sage in Agrarian Studies, Yale University, fewer assassinations disappearances, and other kinds of las and plu stale errorism-They fe! that not only can ‘governments be improved inthis way.they ‘can infact be persuaded tores tive teally needed. This would gradually en- "emiments wouldcometoregard such laws as exceptional and iregul eventually abandon it alt i may indeed be ad ‘debate on preventive detention laws. is itself symptomatic of some measure. of

    You might also like