Article 250

Article 250 of the Constitution of India authorises Parliament to make laws on subjects enumerated in the State List during the period when a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. This Article provides the Union Government with the necessary legislative flexibility to act decisively in situations of national crisis, ensuring the stability, security, and continuity of governance. It forms part of Part XI (Relations between the Union and the States), reflecting the Indian Constitution’s pragmatic balance between federal autonomy and national unity.

Historical and Constitutional Background

The framers of the Constitution recognised that extraordinary circumstances, such as war, external aggression, or financial instability, might require the temporary centralisation of legislative power. Under normal circumstances, the State List (List II of the Seventh Schedule) remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of State Legislatures. However, during emergencies, uniform action across the nation becomes imperative.
Article 250 was thus incorporated as an emergency provision to enable the Union to legislate on State subjects for the duration of the crisis. This provision ensures that the distribution of legislative power, while primarily federal in nature, can shift towards a more unitary form when national interests demand it.

Clause (1): Parliamentary Power During Emergency

Clause (1) of Article 250 states that:
“Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament shall, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List.”
This clause introduces a non obstante provision, meaning that it overrides the normal distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States under Article 246.
Key features of Clause (1) include:

• Temporary expansion of Parliament’s jurisdiction: Parliament gains authority to legislate on any matter in the State List for the whole or part of India.
• Applicability to emergencies: The power applies only while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force under the Constitution.
• Extent of operation: Parliament’s authority extends to all States and Union Territories, ensuring national uniformity in law-making.

Clause (2): Duration and Continuance of Laws

Clause (2) of Article 250 provides that any law made under Clause (1) ceases to have effect six months after the Proclamation of Emergency has ended, except for actions already taken under such laws.
This ensures that Parliament’s emergency powers are temporary and self-limiting. After the expiry of the emergency and the six-month period, legislative competence over State List subjects automatically reverts to the State Legislatures.

Types of Emergencies Under Which Article 250 Applies

Article 250 becomes operative during the existence of any of the three types of emergencies recognised by the Constitution:

1. National Emergency (Article 352) – Declared when India faces war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
2. State Emergency (Article 356) – Imposed when a State government fails to function in accordance with constitutional provisions (President’s Rule).
3. Financial Emergency (Article 360) – Declared when the financial stability or credit of India is threatened.

Among these, Article 250 is most commonly associated with Article 352, as it directly concerns national security and integrity. However, the principle of legislative centralisation may extend to the other forms of emergency as well.

Scope and Application

The scope of Article 250 is extensive yet circumscribed by time and purpose. It allows Parliament to legislate on matters typically under State jurisdiction, such as:

• Public order and police (Entries 1–2 of the State List),
• Public health and sanitation (Entry 6),
• Agriculture (Entry 14),
• Trade and commerce within the State (Entry 26), and
• Local government (Entry 5).

However, this power does not permanently alter the federal distribution of legislative authority. Once the emergency ends, the federal balance is restored automatically.

Judicial Interpretation and Safeguards

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in defining the limits and constitutional validity of emergency powers, including those under Article 250.

• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court propounded the basic structure doctrine, asserting that emergency powers cannot destroy the essential federal character of the Constitution.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court examined the misuse of emergency powers, highlighting the importance of judicial oversight to prevent authoritarianism.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court reaffirmed that the balance between central and state powers is a part of the basic structure and cannot be undermined even during emergencies.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Court underscored that judicial review remains a core constitutional safeguard, ensuring that emergency legislation remains subject to scrutiny.

These judgments collectively reinforce the idea that while Parliament enjoys wide powers under Article 250, such powers must be exercised in good faith and within the bounds of constitutional morality.

Legislative Impact and Examples

Article 250 has been invoked during periods of declared emergencies to enable Parliament to legislate on State subjects. Some notable examples include:

• The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), enacted during the 1975–1977 Emergency, granting the government powers to detain individuals for national security reasons.
• Amendments to defence and internal security laws to enhance the central government’s ability to respond to wartime or insurgent threats.
• Emergency-related fiscal and administrative measures under Financial Emergency provisions to stabilise the economy.

Although such measures were intended to address crises, they have also been criticised for potential overreach, underscoring the need for judicial vigilance and legislative accountability.

Limitations and Constitutional Safeguards

Despite its expansive scope, Article 250 is subject to several limitations designed to uphold constitutional democracy and federalism:

• Temporal limitation: The Article applies only during the period of emergency and lapses six months after its cessation.
• Federal restoration: Legislative power over State subjects automatically reverts to the States once normalcy returns.
• Fundamental rights protection: Emergency legislation cannot contravene the basic rights of citizens unless specifically permitted under emergency provisions.
• Judicial review: The courts retain the authority to examine the validity and constitutionality of laws enacted under Article 250.

These safeguards ensure that Article 250 functions as a temporary constitutional tool, not a permanent encroachment on State autonomy.

Significance of Article 250

Article 250 serves multiple constitutional and administrative purposes:

• Ensures national preparedness: Enables swift legislative action in times of crisis.
• Facilitates coordination: Provides a uniform legal framework across States during emergencies.
• Preserves flexibility: Balances the federal structure with the need for centralised control in extraordinary circumstances.
• Protects democratic principles: Incorporates temporal and procedural checks to prevent misuse.

The Article thus represents a critical aspect of India’s constitutional design, combining federal resilience with national unity.

Criticism and Challenges

While Article 250 strengthens the Union’s capacity to handle emergencies, it has also drawn criticism:

• Potential for misuse: The central government may exploit emergency powers to erode State authority or suppress dissent.
• Ambiguity of “emergency” situations: Broad interpretation of emergency conditions could lead to over-centralisation.
• Historical misuse: The Emergency period (1975–1977) demonstrated the dangers of unchecked executive and legislative power under emergency provisions.

These concerns highlight the importance of parliamentary debate, judicial review, and democratic vigilance in preventing abuse.