On 20th August 1949, Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed [Bengal General] at the Constituent Assembly spoke as follows;
“Even during the two great world war – the greatest emergencies that can happen to mankind – Courts were never closed. In fact Indian and English Courts kept the doors were opened, no one thought that their power should be curtailed, these rights should be justiciable otherwise, it is impossible to say that the rights exist. The very right of violated right being challenged in the Court would act as deterrent upon the State official acting arbitrarily. The sacred name of President has been used – I submit exploited in this Article as I already submitted the President will not act himself, he is not supposed to be acting on his individual discretion, he has always act on the advice his Ministry and it is conceivable that the Ministry may be moved to action by some Secretary and Undersecretary who may start the mischief innocently and so valuable rights which are the essence of liberty will be suspended in the sacred name of the President— I think Sir, this power should be curtailed as much as possible though everybody will concede that some powers should be given to the President to exercise which are really needed to meet an emergency but the powers claimed for the President will suppress the liberties of people during the war – English Court were opened and the Indian Courts were also opened and one of the greatest law lords – Lord Atkin – an argument was made that during the war justice should be so modified and individual rights so curtailed as help the war effort – made a famous pronouncement. He said war or no war justice must go on, his Majesty’s Justice cannot be curtailed or in the least affected by the existence of a war. War is the greatest emergency conceivable and yet law course were opened to give effect to individual right. We have not defined emergency, emergency may mean anything or it may mean nothing – a trivial matter may be called an emergency and may be used only to interfere with fundamental rights and liberties of people with which emergency may have nothing do, the rights may be totally irrelevant for the emergency but yet they will remain suspended and the courts will be absolutely powerless to give them redress. I submit that these powers cannot be given they can be confined at least to rights guaranteed under Article 13 [old] and Article 16 [old] as I have submitted. I think the matter is too serious to be passed by a mere majority of votes without any adequate debate by the devise of premature closure of motion.
Comment: In the matter of Presidential Emergency Proclamation, the role of bureaucracy have been thought of prophetic remark.