THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEFENCE FORCES -- Brig BL Poonia, VSM (Retd)

Date:- 04 June 2026

Background

Reference article titled Constitutional Status of Defence Forces, by Brig Pradeep Sharma, published in Mission Victory India on June 01, 2026.

Constitutional Status of Defence Forces

If by "constitutional status" the author means that Armed Forces are a constitutional body like the Election Commission or the Supreme Court, the answer is no. Defence Forces Headquarters were declared attached offices to the Ministry of Defence on May 27, 1952. By doing so, it divested the Armed Forces of any role in policy making. The manual of office procedures decrees that while departments like Ministry of Defence could make policy decisions, their attached offices merely implemented the same.

The Constitution recognizes and regulates the Defence Forces, through various Acts of Parliament, ie the Army Act, Navy Act, and the Air Force Act, and they are mandated to function under the orders of the Executive.

Does the Constitution Empower the Defence Forces to Intervene?

The author says: "In such situations where the Government fails to govern as per the Constitution, Parliament is unable to function or a dictatorial leader endangers democracy and lastly an external or internal aggression threatens it, the constitution makes it obligatory on military authorities to intervene, protect and restore democracy."

While it sounds impressive, it is absolutely incorrect. To ensure that such a situation doesn't arise, we have the Parliament, and the Supreme Court. The Defence Forces of India have neither been given any such responsibility, nor vested with such powers to intervene. All decisions regarding the security of the nation are taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security Affairs, presided over by the Prime Minister, and conveyed to the Defence Forces through the Ministry of Defence, which is the administrative link between the Executive and the Defence Forces.

If case of break down of law and order, or violation of the constitutional provisions, the Constitution stipulates three types of Emergencies:

●   An emergency due to war, external aggression or armed rebellion, under Article 352. It is popularly known as National Emergency. However, the Constitution employs the expression 'Proclamation of Emengency' to denote an emergency of this type.

●   An Emergency due to failure of constitutional machinery in the states under Article 356.

●   Financial Emergency due to threat to the financial stability under Article 360.

Threat to Democracy

The biggest threat to democracy ever felt by the nation so far was when Smt Indira Gandhi had declared National Emergency in June 1975. However, since the proclamation was issued under the seal of the President of India, the decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. But the pertinent question here is: "Did the Defence Forces have any legal latitude to decide whether the democracy or the Constitution was in danger, and were they entitled to intervene, by taking any action in an attempt to save it?" No, the Defence Forces had no role in this, whatsoever. It was for the President to decide whether he should have signed such a proclamation, or withheld the same. Defending the Constitution is the responsibility of the President of India, but in practice the responsibility dwells upon the constitutionally elected government of the day.

Constitutional Position of the President

To begin with, let us understand the role, responsibilities, powers and constitutional position of the President.

The Constitution of India has provided for a parliamentary form of government, in which the President of India has been made only a nominal executive; the real executive being the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister. In other words, the President has to exercise his powers and functions with the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

Dr BR Ambedkar had summed up the true position of the President in the following way :

"In the Indian Constitution, there is placed at the head of the Indian Union, a functionary who is called the President of the Union. The title of the functionary reminds of the President of the United States. But beyond the identity of the names, there is nothing in common between the form of government prevalent in America and the form of government adopted under the Indian Constitution. The American form of government is called the Presidential system and what India has adopted is the Parliamentary system. Under the Presidential system of America, the President is the Chief head of the Executive and administration, whereas under the Indian Constitution, the President occupies the same position as that of the King/Queen under the English Constitution. Hence, the President of India has been vested

with the following limited powers only :

●   The President is the head of the State but not of the head of the Executive.

●   The President represents the nation but does not rule the nation.

●   The President is the symbol of the nation and his place in administration is that of a ceremonial device or seal by which the nation's decisions are made known.

●   The President is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, and can do nothing contrary to their advice, nor can he/she do anything without their advice."

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, enacted by Smt Indira Gandhi, has made the President bound by the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister. If someone feels that the Parliament has enacted any act prejudicial to the spirit of the Constitution, one is at liberty to approach the Supreme Court for a judicial review.

The Role of the Defence Forces

The author says, that the primary role of the Defence Forces is to defend Indian Constitution and Democracy against any of the following threats: a. ..... b. .....

Well, this too is totally incorrect. The role of the Defence forces in brief is:

●   To defend the nation from external aggression.

●   To assist the civil administration during internal disorders and natural calamities.

Defending the Constitution is not the role assigned to the Defence Forces; this is a complete misnomer, and a misleading statement. Even the format for administration of oath to the defence personnel is not prescribed in any Article of the Constitution, but given only in various Acts of Parliament, ie Army Act (Army Rule 9 refers), Navy Act, and Air Force Act, which reads as follows:

“I, ____________, do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully serve in the regular Army of the Union of India and go wherever ordered by land, sea or air, and that I will observe and obey all commands of the President of the Union of India and the commands of any officer set over me, even to the peril of my life.”

It would be seen that the oath primarily deals with an officer's allegiance to the Constitution, and no where does it mention about protecting the Constitution. It is only the President who is administered an oath which makes him/ her responsible for protecting the Constitution, none else. The format for oath of office of the President, prescribed in Article 60 of the Constitution reads a follows;

“I, ..............., do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”

Declartion of Fidelity to the Constitution by the Beaurocrats

While the IAS officers are not administered an oath, they are required to make a declaration of fidelity to the Constitution and allegiance to the sovereignty and integrity of India, as per the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, as under:

"I, ....................,  having been appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a member of the Indian Administrative Service."

This is commonly referred to as the oath of allegiance for IAS officers. The two main points it addresses are:

●   Allegiance to the Constitution.

●   Upholding the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Martial Law (Article 34)

●   Article 34 does not deal with imposition of Martial Law.

●   It deals only with  restrictions to be imposed 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 maintainance or restoration of order in any area where Martial Law was in force.

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

While Martial Law has not been defined anywhere in the Constitution, and there is no specific or express provision in the Constitution that authorises the Executive to declare the same, it is implicit in Article 34 under which it can be declared in any area within the the territory of India. Howevever, the point to remember here is that the Martial Law can be imposed only under extraordinary circumstances like war, invasion, insurrection, riot or any violent resistance to law. Its justification lies in repelling force by force for maintaining or restoring order in the society.

During the operation of Martial Law, the military authorities are vested with abnormal powers to take all necessary steps. They can impose restrictions and regulations on the rights of the civilians, can punish the civilians and even condemn them to death. At the same time, the Supreme Court held that the declartion of Martial Law does not ipso factoresult in suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Notwithstanding the above, imposition of Martial Law under Article 34 is different from the declartion of National Emergency under Article 352, which was imposed by Mrs Indira Gandhi in June 1975. While National Emergency can be imposed across the nation, Martial Law can be imposed only in the areas which have been occupied by the enemy, militants, or cessationist elements. The aim is to maintain the integrity of India.

Conclusion

We must remember that the Defence Forces have neither been given any responsibility to protect the Constitution, nor vested with any powers to do the same. That is not their job. Their job is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and thus defend the nation from external aggression and assist the civil administration during internal disorders and natural calamities. Though the responsibility to protect the Constitution rests with the President of India, yet since the President is bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister, in practice, this responsibility rests with the elected Government of India.

Even imposition of Martial Law is in no way related to protection of the Constitution from the Prime Minister; it's aim is, either to suppress a rebellion or drive out the enemy, or the militants, that have occupied a particular area within the territorial jurisdiction of India, which leaves the nation with no other option but to impose Martial Law, to maintain and uphold the integrity of India.

And lastly, referring to the Constitution as Baba Saheb Ambekar's Constitution depicts a narrow political bias. The correct terminology is The Constitution of India, or when referring to the original Constitution, it would be - The Constitution enacted by the Constituent Assembly. Dr BR Ambedkar was only the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, whereas passing of the Bills to convert them into Articles of the Constitution, after a detailed debate, had been done by 299 members of the Constituent Assembly of India.