Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v Union of India
Rule established
Entry 2A of the Union List covers the deployment of armed forces of the Union in a State in aid of the civil power. Such deployment does not supplant the State administration: the forces act in aid of the civil power, which continues to function, so there is no imposition of emergency by implication.
Facts
- The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 empowered the Governor of a State or the Central Government to declare an area to be a disturbed area.
- In such an area, officers of the armed forces were given powers including the power to use force in specified circumstances, to arrest without warrant, to enter and search premises, and to destroy certain structures, with protection from prosecution except with prior sanction.
- Public order and police are subjects in the State List, and it was contended that the Act invaded that field.
- It was further contended that the deployment of Union armed forces to maintain order within a State amounted in substance to the imposition of an emergency without any Proclamation under Art.352 or Art.356.
- The wide powers conferred on the armed forces, and the resulting allegations of excesses, were separately challenged as violating Arts.14, 19 and 21.
Issue
- Whether Parliament is competent to legislate for the deployment of Union armed forces in a State and for their powers while so deployed; and whether such deployment displaces the State administration or constitutes an emergency by implication.
Held
- The legislation was upheld. Competence was found in Entry 2A of the Union List, which since the 42nd Amendment expressly covers the deployment of any armed force of the Union in a State in aid of the civil power and the powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while so deployed. The Court held that deployment in aid of the civil power does not mean substitution for it: the State's civil administration, its police and its magistracy continue to function, and the armed forces assist them. There is accordingly no displacement of the State government and no undeclared emergency. The Court nevertheless read in safeguards, holding among other things that a declaration of a disturbed area must be for a limited period and be periodically reviewed, that the Do's and Don'ts issued by the army authorities must be treated as binding, that force used must be the minimum necessary, and that a person arrested must be handed over to the nearest police station with the least possible delay, with a report of the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The distribution of powers is to be read as a whole, and an express Union entry cannot be cut down by a State entry on a related subject; public order remains with the States, while the deployment of Union forces to assist in restoring it is a distinct matter assigned to the Union. The characterisation of the deployment as being "in aid of" the civil power is not merely descriptive but limiting, because it is the condition on which the competence rests, and it is that condition which supplies the standard against which the exercise of the powers is measured.
How to use it in an exam
- The authority on Union deployment of armed forces in a State. Cite Entry 2A of the Union List as the source of competence.
- The distinction to state is between acting in aid of the civil power and acting in supersession of it. The first is competent; the second would require Art.356.
- Note the safeguards read in, since they are the practical content of the decision: limited and reviewable declarations, minimum force, binding Do's and Don'ts, and prompt handing over to the nearest police station.
- Read with Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India 2005 on Art.355, since deployment is one means by which the Union discharges its duty to protect a State against internal disturbance.
- Use in a problem where the Union deploys forces in a State against the wishes of the State Government. The question to ask is whether the civil administration continues to function, and whether the deployment is in aid of it or in place of it.
- In an evaluative answer, note the continuing criticism of the Act and the demands for its repeal, and that the Court's response was to regulate rather than to invalidate.
Source
Source: (1998) 2 SCC 109; AIR 1998 SC 431; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the leading authority on Union deployment of armed forces in a State; citation verified; bench corrected on audit and the fifth Judge's name not confirmed; note the judgment is dated 27 November 1997, the 1998 SCC volume being the report
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.