Sir, I am opposed to another provision in this article, that the powers and functions of the High Court will not be abrogated during a period of emergency. I would like to know why. Do you distrust your President ? Do you think he will go out of his way to indulge in acts of personal tyranny in order to feed fat his grudge against some political opponents? In a period of emergency all the energies of the President, all the attention of Government and of the Council of Ministers would be diverted towards one goal, i.e., how to maintain law and order and bring about peace in an afflicted part of the country. Sir, a few months ago there was a hot debate in the house on the question as to whether the words “due process of law” should be incorporated in this constitution. We felt that if these words were there, the hands of the executive would be fettered and so we dropped those words., The danger of a grave” emergency arising in this country is not merely theoretical; it is very real. And I should like to know whether it is possible for the President to function and meet a crisis without abrogating, if he feels necessary to do so, some of the fundamental rights of the citizen. After all, it is for a temporary period for which we are asking these powers for the President; it is not a permanent provision which would remain in operation for all time. Therefore I feel that the powers of the High Court should be abrogated, if the President so thinks. I am not saying that as soon as article 278 comes into operation all powers of the High Court should be abrogated at once. I only want that if the President feels that he cannot meet the emergency without abrogating some of the fundamental rights of the citizen he must be empowered to do so. And there are reasons behind it. I feel that if there is a conflict between the security of the State and the personal liberty of the individual I will choose the former and lay stress on the security of the State. For the first time in the chequered history of India we have got an independent State of our own; are we going to barter it away in the name of some new-fangled notions which have been discredited in their own homelands? The best thing of course is to have both security of the State and personal liberty of the individual. But the ideal thing is not Always possible, and when there is a conflict between these two, my friends will have to make a choice; I would choose the security of the State.
