Fundamental rights

Kindly prefer to raise this query before your Professor /Teacher. 
However you may put up your actual grievance query for relevant solutions /guidance. 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal 
VISIT:  www.chshelpforum.com

Then you won't be posting here like that, ...

Hello,

In India, the martial law is described under Article 34 of the constitution. This article imposes a restriction on fundamental rights while martial law is enforced in an area within the territory of India. One thing to be noted is the parliament or the government do continue its work when martial law is enforced. This is in almost every country.  So, the martial law empowers the parliament to indemnify any government servant or any others for any act done with respect to restoration of order where martial law was in force. (Source-legalbites)

Related:

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/origin-and-validity-of-armed-forces-special-powers-act-1958--8271.asp 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/scope-of-fundamental-rights-in-our-democracy-11908.asp 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/fundamental-rights-in-indian-constitution-3770.asp

Thank you

Martial law is defined in India by Article 34 of the constitution. While martial law is in effect in an area inside India's territory, this provision restricts fundamental rights. One thing to keep in mind is that when martial law is imposed, the parliament or government continues to function. This is the case in nearly every country. As a result, when martial law is in effect, the parliament has the authority to reimburse any government officer or other person for any act performed in the interest of restoring order.
 

Article 34 provides for the restrictions on fundamental rights while martial law is in force in any area within the territory of India. It empowers the Parliament to indemnify any government servant or any other person for any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area where martial law was in force. The Parliament can also validate any sentence passed, the punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered, or another act is done under martial law in such area.

The Act of Indemnity made by the Parliament cannot be challenged in any court on the ground of contravention of any of the fundamental rights.

The concept of martial law has been borrowed in India from the English common law. However, the expression ‘martial law’ has not been defined anywhere in the Constitution. It means ‘military rule’. It refers to a situation where civil administration is run by the military authorities according to their own rules and regulations framed outside the ordinary law. It thus implies the suspension of ordinary law and the government by military tribunals. It is different from the military law that applies to the armed forces.

No specific or express provision in the Constitution authorizes the executive to declare martial law. However, it is implicit in Article 34 under which martial law can be declared in any area within the territory of India. Martial law is imposed under extraordinary circumstances like war, invasion, insurrection, rebellion, riot, or any violent resistance to the law. Its justification is to repel force by force for maintaining or restoring order in society.

During the operation of martial law, the military authorities are vested with abnormal powers to take all necessary steps. They impose restrictions and regulations on the rights of the civilians, can punish the civilians, and even condemn them to death. The Supreme Court held that the declaration of martial law does not ipso facto result in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.                                                            

The declaration of martial law under Article 34 is different from the declaration of a national emergency under Article 352.

Regards,

Anaita Vas

could you please state facts of the case.