Which of the following is not a correct difference between Martial Law and Emergency provisions ........

Indian Polity Fundamental Rights

Which of the following is not a correct difference between Martial Law and Emergency provisions?

Except for an implicit mention in Article 34, there are no detailed provisions of Martial Law in the constitution, but emergency provisions have been laid out in great detail.

Martial Law affects only fundamental rights while Emergency affects fundamental rights as well as centre-state relations.

Martial Law is imposed only in specific part of the country while emergency is imposed all over the country.

While the constitution gives three grounds for imposition of emergency, the grounds for imposition of Martial Law are not mentioned in the constitution.

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Fundamental Rights

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Third statement is incorrect. Martial Law is imposed in some specific area of the country while national emergency is imposed either in the whole country or in a part of it.
The difference between Martial Law and National Emergency in context with India is as follows:
• While Martial Law affects only fundamental rights, National Emergency has wider implications upon fundamental rights, federal scheme, distribution of power etc.
• Martial law suspends the government as well as ordinary courts of law. In National Emergency, ordinary courts of law keep working.
• Martial Law is imposed on account of breakdown of law and order. Emergency is imposed on account of war, external aggression or armed rebellion i.e. National Emergency, State Emergency and Financial Emergency.
• The constitution of India has not specific provisions on martial law i.e. in what conditions or circumstances it will be imposed etc. On the other hand, a whole chapter has been dedicated to emergency provisions.