Syllabus: GS II Functions and Responsibilities of the Union and the States, Issues and Challenges Pertaining to the Federal Structure.
Critically analyze the evolution of Article 356 in the context of Indian federalism, highlighting instances of its misuse. Discuss the recommendations of various commissions and key judicial pronouncements aimed at curbing its misuse and ensuring its constitutional application.
(15 marks, 250 words)
The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356: Balancing Federalism and Constitutional Integrity
The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has been a contentious issue, often testing the balance between the autonomy of states and the authority of the Centre in India’s quasi-federal setup. It is essential to examine its evolution, instances of misuse, and reforms to prevent its politicization.
Introduction
India’s federalism is characterized by the division of powers between the Centre and states, ensuring governance within the framework of the Constitution. However, Article 356 allows the Centre to intervene in a state’s governance if the constitutional machinery breaks down. This provision, while meant to uphold constitutional governance, has often been misused, raising concerns about its impact on federalism.
Evolution and Constitutional Basis
- Article 355: Imposes a duty on the Centre to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbances while ensuring governance as per the Constitution.
- Article 356: Enables the President to assume control of a state if its government cannot function constitutionally.
- B.R. Ambedkar envisioned Article 356 as an emergency provision, not as a tool for political interference.
Misuse of Article 356
- Kerala (1959): The dismissal of the first communist government despite its majority was politically motivated.
- Tamil Nadu (1976): The DMK government was dismissed during the Emergency, suppressing political dissent.
- Karnataka (1989): Despite a majority, the Janata Party government was dismissed, highlighting political interference.
Judicial Pronouncements
- S.R. Bommai Case (1994):
- Article 356 can only be invoked when there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery, not mere law-and-order issues.
- Proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review.
- The dissolution of a state assembly requires parliamentary approval.
- Naga People’s Movement (1998): Broadened the scope of Article 355, empowering the Centre to act against internal disturbances while adhering to constitutional safeguards.
Recommendations of Committees
- Sarkaria Commission (1988):
- Article 356 should be used sparingly as a last resort.
- Alternatives must be exhausted before imposing President’s Rule.
- State legislatures should not be dissolved without parliamentary approval.
- Punchhi Commission (2010):
- Emphasized a detailed and objective report from the Governor.
- Stressed on issuing prior warnings to state governments.
- Rajamannar Committee (1971):
- Advocated for stricter guidelines to prevent misuse.
- Suggested that reasons for invoking Article 356 should be clearly communicated to the state.
Challenges in Implementation
- Politicization of Emergency Powers:
- Used to dismiss opposition-led state governments.
- Undermines democratic mandates.
- Governor’s Role:
- Often viewed as an agent of the Centre, raising concerns about impartiality.
- Vague Provisions:
- “Failure of constitutional machinery” remains subjective, leading to arbitrary interpretations.
- Impact on Governance:
- Disruption in policy continuity and administrative efficiency during President’s Rule.
Steps Towards Reform
- Strengthening Federalism:
- Strict adherence to judicial guidelines from the S.R. Bommai case.
- Clear delineation of the roles of the Centre and the Governor.
- Enhancing Governor’s Accountability:
- Mandating objective, evidence-backed recommendations.
- Judicial Oversight:
- Expedited judicial review of proclamations to prevent abuse.
- Parliamentary Oversight:
- Requiring detailed parliamentary debates before approving President’s Rule.
Way Forward
To preserve the federal character of India’s polity, it is crucial to treat Article 356 as a measure of last resort, ensuring its use only in genuine emergencies. Implementing committee recommendations, ensuring impartiality in the Governor’s actions, and fostering cooperative federalism can strike a balance between state autonomy and national integrity.
Conclusion
Article 356 is an extraordinary constitutional provision that must be exercised sparingly, with strict adherence to democratic principles. Preventing its misuse is vital to upholding India’s federal structure while ensuring governance aligns with constitutional mandates. Strengthened checks and balances, alongside adherence to judicial precedents, can ensure this provision serves its intended purpose without eroding the foundations of federalism and democracy.
