In a liberal democratic country like India, each individual is free to express and espouse their thoughts and beliefs. In the constitution of India, the freedom of the individual is ensured by articles 19 and 21, which are termed as ‘fundamental rights’ that are guaranteed to all citizens of the country. Yet, the Indian constitution also has clauses for the proclamation of Emergency in the country which allows the Executive to usurp power from other branches of the government during the period. We will be discussing the details of these two different kinds of clauses in the Constitution as we go further in the paper. For now, it is important to understand the contrast that emerges between the two concepts of freedom and authority here.

The fundamental aspects of the struggle between individual freedom and authority were developed in the works of Genevan philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). His renowned work, “The Social Contract” is an alternative along the lines of the Hobbes-Locke theories of the establishment of the state by the people via a contract. Rousseau introduced the concept of “General Will”, which meant that the community of people as a whole passes rules and laws that they are willing to follow as a community of equals. Consequently, this ensures the maintenance of individual freedom of each member since, by keeping their private interests at bay and approving a legal framework for the benefit of all, they are able to treat the consent of all members equally. Such an idea has been found to be suitable in a direct democracy. However, a contrast emerges in modern-day large democratic states, where the lines between the general will in the form of voting to choose the government and the actual exercise of authority by elected representatives are blurred. This paper aims to analyse the struggle that exists between freedom and unfreedom in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ideologies in relation to the contrast that emerges in the Indian constitution.

Two significant articles of the Indian Constitution that deal with individual rights and freedom are Articles 19 and 21. All the citizens of India are guaranteed the following six liberties under Article 19:

1. The freedom of speech and expression
2. The freedom to assemble peacefully without arms
3. The freedom to form associations or unions
4. The freedom to move freely within India’s territory
5. The freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country
6. The freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The exercise of democracy and the defence of individual rights depend on these freedoms allocated to the citizens equally. These rights enable citizens to express their views and consequently participate in the socio-political affairs of the country. Additionally, Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberties. It states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This article provides a safeguard against arbitrary state action and ensures that every individual has the right to live with dignity and free will.

Rousseau’s social contract theory asserted that in exchange for safety and security, people hand over some of their own rights to the state. The idea was that the government should work towards the common good and that individual rights and freedoms should be protected by an infrangible law. The guarantees of rights and freedom to the citizens are the foundations for the establishment of the state in Rousseau’s framework. Thus, Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution can be perceived as the essential clauses that safeguard people's rights and liberties. They are a reflection of the social contract theory and democratic ideals as advocated by Rousseau.

Moving further, the proclamation of emergency powers that a president holds is prescribed in the constitution under Article 352. This article specifies that a state of emergency can be declared if the security of India or any part of the country is threatened by war, armed rebellion or internal disturbance. The article states that the Proclamation of an emergency is only legitimised once the decision is approved by the Union Cabinet, and approved by both Houses of Parliament: The Rajya Sabha (the Upper house) and The Lok Sabha (the Lower house). The nature of these reasons appears overly easy to comprehend and interpret, but there’s a paradox that exists. The classification of internal disturbance as a threat is done by the government. Protests against the government or the policies that it implements can be interpreted as internal disturbances. So, the emergency powers can be exploited by the Executive to ‘preserve’ the security of the country from internal dissenters. In the scenario, where there is a majoritarian government at the helm of affairs, the implementation and proclamation of emergency do not face many hurdles.

This is not to deny there are no safeguards against the use of emergency powers. Article 359 limits the emergency powers, by highlighting what rights can and cannot be halted by the president in his declaration. This article prohibits even the temporary suspension of protection against double jeopardy and protection of life and personal liberty, which are stated in Articles 20 and 21 respectively. But the fundamental rights ensuring individual freedom under article 19 are immediately suspended under the proclamation of emergency in the country. The citizens are prohibited from assembling peacefully. Citizens cannot seek the protection of the Judiciary with regard to sanctioning freedoms ensured under article 19.

For instance, in 1975, an emergency was declared in the country as a result of “internal disturbance” by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This was unlike the previous use of emergency powers which were cited as the result of war or imminent dangers of war. Thus, the 1975 emergency proved to be controversial. It was claimed by the government that the "internal disturbance" was dangerous for civil lives and the emergency had to be declared in “public interest”, even though it was pointed out by activists, leaders from the opposition party and scholars that the emergency was a result of rising criticism and protest directed against the government. Here the aforementioned paradox about the determination of “internal rebellion” as a threat is triggered. In a situation where the citizens are expressing their disapproval of certain government policies, by exercising their freedom of speech, the executive branch of the government responded by declaring an emergency. Arguably, this led to several human rights violations. Political opponents and activists were imprisoned. There was greater censorship over the media. Citizens were prohibited from attending large public gatherings.

Rousseau said that the very existence of power over something annihilates the idea of individual freedom and “general will” because there is an inequality of power and consent. When we adapt his ideas to the contemporary context, it would mean that the exercise of power is sincere till the said power is based not on the pursuit of private interests but on the interests of the community of equals. Additionally, the formation of a democratic system in its essence remains famously “for the people, by the people, of the people”. It starts possessing a stark contrast with Rousseau's ideas once a few individuals are given more power and importance than others.

Rousseau stressed the importance of freedom and equality for the citizens; he also believed that a just society is one in which individuals have the freedom to work towards their own interests, while also contributing to the common good of the community. He noticed that freedom could be limited by certain social and political structures that prevented the ability of individuals to exercise their free will. According to Rousseau, individual freedom and the common good of the community must coexist together and the interests of the individual should be put aside for the welfare of the group.

This paper attempted to uncover the contrast that exists between Rousseau's ideas of freedom in relation to authority and employ it to understand the struggle within the Indian constitution. Historically, establishing democratic forms of government has been one of the main ways societies have tried to protect individual freedom. The Indian Constitution also emphasises the importance of freedom and equality for all citizens. The Constitution recognizes that individuals have certain fundamental rights. The ability to vote and take part in decision-making is granted to citizens. This makes it easier to maintain the government's transparency and uphold the rights of the individual. Yet, the Constitution also acknowledges that these rights may be constrained during particular scenarios. Across the world, attempts to restrict individual liberty have been made by authoritarian governments in an effort to increase their own power and keep society under control. Many tactics can be used to achieve this, including censorship, propaganda, limitations on the freedom of speech and political repression of dissidents. Thus, it can be said that the idea of Freedom for all individuals is a never-ending struggle because of the dynamics with other important concepts of authority and security.