Military rule in India refers to a situation where the armed forces take control over a specific area. They usually suspend the normal functioning of civil authorities. This control often happens through the imposition of martial law. Under martial law, military commanders gain the power to enforce laws, maintain order, and manage governance.
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide for military rule. However, in extreme cases like war, rebellion, or large-scale violence, the government may call in the military to restore order. Even then, civilian government remains supreme under constitutional principles. Martial law temporarily overrides civil rights to ensure national security and public safety.
Indian courts have maintained that martial law must be temporary. Authorities must restore civil governance as soon as possible. In all cases, military action must align with constitutional values and legal limits.
What Happens Under Military Rule or Martial Law in India?
Under martial law in India, military authorities assume control over civil administration in designated areas to restore or maintain public order. This extraordinary measure is typically invoked during severe internal disturbances or threats to national security.
During martial law, the military takes over the functions of civil authorities, including law enforcement and governance, to ensure the maintenance of law and order.
The Indian Constitution permits the restriction of certain Fundamental Rights when martial law is in effect. However, Articles 20 and 21, which protect against arbitrary conviction and ensure the right to life and personal liberty, cannot be suspended even during emergencies, as per the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.
Article 34 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to indemnify individuals, including military personnel, for actions taken in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in areas where martial law is in force. This means they are protected from legal proceedings for such actions.
The Supreme Court of India has held that the declaration of martial law does not automatically suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This ensures that judicial oversight remains, and individuals can challenge unlawful detention even under martial law.
The term “martial law” is not explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution. Its application and scope have been interpreted through judicial decisions and constitutional provisions.
What Is The Difference Between Military Rule And Civilian Rule in India?
Military rule and civilian rule in India differ sharply in authority, legal framework, and civil-military relations.
- Source of Authority and Control
Civilian Rule:
In India, elected representatives hold supreme authority. The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers manage all state affairs, including the military. The armed forces remain under civilian control, as mandated by the Constitution.
Additionally, military rule occurs when the armed forces take direct control over governance. Civil administration and civil liberties often get suspended. The military overrides civilian authority during such extraordinary times.
- Legal Framework and Jurisdiction
Civilian Rule:
Civilian laws and the Constitution govern India. Fundamental Rights and separation of powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary are guaranteed. The military operates under civilian laws like the Army Act, 1950. However, civilian officials always retain final authority.
- Under military rule or martial law, military law applies. Courts-martial and swift disciplinary actions govern the armed forces. Parliament may suspend Fundamental Rights under Article 34 during emergencies. In such cases, military authorities exercise extraordinary powers over civilians.
- Civil-Military Relations
Civilian Rule:
India maintains strong civilian control over its military. The Defence Minister and civilian officials oversee the armed forces. The military remains apolitical and does not interfere in domestic politics. This tradition has helped India avoid military coups.
During military rule, the military takes over governance and law enforcement. Civilian political institutions get suspended. The military may restrict civil liberties and political activities to maintain order.
- Role and Function
Civilian Rule:
The military mainly defends the nation externally. It supports internal security only under civilian direction. It does not participate in governance or political decision-making.
The military directly governs administration, law enforcement, and sometimes even the judiciary. Martial law provisions help maintain order during these times.
What Is Article 34 Of The Indian Constitution?
Article 34 allows restrictions on Fundamental Rights in any area where martial law is in force. It empowers Parliament to act for public safety during extraordinary situations.
Parliament can indemnify government servants or others for acts done to maintain or restore order during martial law.
It can also validate sentences, punishments, and forfeitures carried out under martial law.
Features of Article 34
Restrictions on Fundamental Rights: Parliament can impose limits on Fundamental Rights during martial law to maintain public order.
Indemnification Powers: Parliament can protect military personnel and officials from legal action for their acts during martial law.
Non-Challenge Ability: Acts of Indemnity passed under Article 34 cannot be challenged in courts for violating Fundamental Rights.
Concept of Martial Law in India
Martial law in India is based on English common law. It occurs when the military takes over civil administration to restore order during war, invasion, insurrection, or riots. It differs from military law, which applies only to military personnel.
Constitutional Basis of Martial Law
The Constitution does not explicitly define martial law.
However, Article 34 indirectly authorizes its application when needed.
Military authorities can exercise extraordinary powers over civilians during martial law. The Supreme Court has clarified that martial law does not automatically suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
This ensures that some judicial oversight remains during martial law.
Conclusion
Military rule represents a drastic shift from democratic governance, where the armed forces assume control to restore or maintain order. While it may be necessary during extreme crises like war, rebellion, or widespread unrest, it often comes at the cost of civil liberties and democratic processes. Martial law temporarily suspends civilian authority and can restrict fundamental rights, but constitutional safeguards like judicial oversight still aim to protect basic freedoms. In a democracy like India, military rule remains an extraordinary and temporary measure, used only when absolutely essential to preserve national security and public order.
