What's New

President’s rule

Q. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 356 ‘a dead letter’. In the light of the above statement, discuss the challenges pertaining to Article 356. What are the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard?

Answer 

Article 356 relates to President’s rule in a state, which means dissolution of the state government. By all means it is meant to deal with emergency situations. In India we have democratically elected governments in the states. Plus our constitution has given a federal character to the country. It is not at all desirable that the central government will interfere in state matters, except in emergency situations. It hampers the basic structure of the constitution.

Therefore Dr Ambedkar wanted art 356 to be a dead letter to be used in extreme circumstances. But unfortunately, it has been just the opposite and the article has been used in a widespread manner for political gains.

Misuse of Article 356

• According to the Sarkaria Committee Report, Article 356 has been used more than 100 times since independence, according to a quick look at the statistics.
• The rightful state governments have occasionally been overthrown in an effort to get them to submit or to offer the Union government’s own party a chance to take over the state. In order to assert their power, Union governments have taken on the exact position that Dr. Ambedkar feared they would, namely that of being judges of the effectiveness of state governance.
• The most aggressive use of Article 356 occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s, which will be remembered. It was applied 59 times between 1971 and 1984.
• It was used the most frequently between 1977 and 1979, when the Morarji Desai cabinet was in power. The post-emergency Central government exploited it as justification for a vendetta against state governments governed by Congress. After regaining power in 1980, Indira Gandhi later paid it back. Then, from 1980 to 1984, it was utilised 17 times.
• Indira Gandhi is recognised for having used Article 356 mostly as a tool against state governments, despite Jawaharlal Nehru also abusing it to overthrow Kerala’s majority Communist government. Following the Congress party’s defeat in several Indian states in 1967, its frequency rose substantially.
• Indira Gandhi even blocked judicial scrutiny of the President’s decision invoking Article 356 using the 38th Constitutional Amendment Act during a time of emergency. But as Dr. Ambedkar had prophesied, the original Article 356 was reinstated in 1978 as a result of the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, which Morarji Desai had proposed.

Sarkaria Committee Report

• Justice R.K. Sarkaria served as the chairman of the Sarkaria Commission. It was established in 1983 and intended to enhance ties between centre and state. It is abundantly obvious from the Sarkaria Commission Report that this power has been exercised more than 100 times since independence.
• Despite the safeguards outlined in clause 356, the centre had repeatedly invoked this clause, which led to its egregious misuse. The 1970s and 1980s saw the most abuse of Article 356.
• The Sarkaria Commission authorised this unusual application of Article 356. This commission contends that Article 356 offers protections in the event that the state’s constitutional apparatus malfunctions.
• Furthermore, it implies that any abuse of this authority would undermine the democratic aspects of the Indian Constitution.
• After carefully weighing all of the ideas, this research concluded that this article should only be utilized in extremely rare circumstances where there are no other options. The report also suggested warning the state in question whose constitutional apparatus had collapsed.
• The justification provided by the state should be adequately assessed and taken into consideration before proclamation of Article 356. The study advises the government to make every effort to have a majority-supported government in the Assembly.
• In the event that this is not practicable, fresh elections must be held right away, and the governor must ask the departing minister to serve as a caretaker administration.
• The commission advises against dissolving state legislative bodies prior to the declaration of an emergency. It further suggests that Article 356 be properly amended to include the relevant details and justifications for invoking paragraph 1 of that article in the proclamation. This will stop the abuse of authority in violation of Article 356.

Issues with the use of Article 356 

• Subversion of democracy: It suspends the democratic process in a state
• Lack of accountability: The frequent use of Article 356 has been seen as an infringement on the federal principles of the Indian Constitution and a diminution of the powers of the states.
• Negative impact on governance: It can lead to administrative and governance breakdowns in a state

Supreme Court Verdict to curb misuse of Article 356 

• In 1989, the Union Government dismissed the S R Bommai government in Karnataka. In its judgment in the S. R. Bommai v/s Union of India case, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court discussed the provisions of Article 356.
• The court held that Article 356 can be invoked only in the situation of the physical breakdown of the Constitutional Government or when there is a ‘hung assembly’.
• However, the provision cannot be used without giving the state government a chance to either prove its majority in the House or without instances of a violent breakdown of the constitutional machinery.
• Since the Court judgment, the arbitrary use of Article 356 has been largely controlled.

Conclusion

• In order to protect national security and address urgent problems, the constitution now includes emergency clauses. Even the founding fathers of the Constitution anticipated that special powers could be needed in the future for the State to respond to and handle such events.
• Since independence, many times have been made use of the emergency provisions. These were employed by the State for a considerable amount of time in an unethical manner and as a tool for political control.
• The prescribed protocol for the President’s emergency proclamation was broken and misapplied. In the State of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir the Constitution’s limited time for how long an emergency can last was violated.
• These cases of misuse led to certain changes being made to these clauses in the 44th Amendment Act. In the meantime, the Indian judicial system largely shut its doors to any kind of infringement of human rights.
• The ability of a person to approach a court of law in the event that their Fundamental Rights are violated was covered in various Supreme Court decisions.
• After the 44th Amendment Act, the Court decided that no one could ever have their right to life and personal freedom taken away. Even in an emergency, Articles 20 and 21 could not be suspended.