On 25 June 1975, the government declared that there was a threat of internal disturbances and therefore, it invoked Article 352 of the Constitution. Under the provision of this article, the government could declare a state of emergency on grounds of external threat or a threat of internal disturbances. The government decided that a grave crisis had arisen which made the proclamation of a state of emergency necessary.

Which of the following is true about proclaiming 'Internal Emergency' now?

It can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’.

The correct answer is Option 1 - It can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’.

Option 1: It can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’. This is correct. 

Option 2: The advice to the President to proclaim an Emergency must be given in writing by the Council of Ministers. This is incorrect because is factually incorrect because it wrongly uses “Council of Ministers” instead of “Union Cabinet”. The advice to the President to proclaim an Emergency must be given in writing by the the Union Cabinet and not Council of Ministers. 

NCERT: The Emergency at once brought out both the weaknesses and the strengths of India’s democracy. Though there are many observers who think that India ceased to be democratic during the Emergency, it is noteworthy that normal democratic functioning resumed within a short span of time. Thus, one lesson of Emergency is that it is extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India. Secondly, it brought out some ambiguities regarding the Emergency provision in the Constitution that have been rectified since. Now, ‘internal’ Emergency can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’ and it is necessary that the advice to the President to proclaim Emergency must be given in writing by the Union Cabinet.

Thirdly, the Emergency made everyone more aware of the value of civil liberties. The Courts too, have taken an active role after the Emergency in protecting the civil liberties of the individuals. This is a response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil liberties effectively during the emergency. Many civil liberties organisations came up after this experience."