Source: The Hindu
Following the resignation of Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, the Union government declared that the state had entered a state of President’s rule. Since May 2023, violence between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities has resulted in over 250 fatalities and over 60,000 displaced people. The conflict started when the Meitei demanded Scheduled Tribe status, which the Kukis opposed out of fear of losing employment opportunities and other affirmative action intended for STs.
India’s sovereignty, unity, and security are safeguarded by emergency measures found in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution, which were modelled after the German Constitution. By taking temporary control in order to maintain stability and protect the democratic framework, they enable the Central government to handle extraordinary crises. The Constitution provides for three sorts of Emergencies-National (Article 352), State (Article 356) and Financial (Article 360)
By using his authority under Article 356, the President has declared a “state emergency,” also referred to as “President’s rule” or “constitutional emergency.” This satisfies the Union’s duty under Article 355 to safeguard states from “internal disturbance” and “external aggression,” as well as to guarantee that state governments function in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 356 (1) gives the President the authority to issue a proclamation when a State’s constitutional machinery malfunctions because of non-performance or malperformance, either after receiving a report from the Governor or otherwise, if she is convinced that the State government is unable to operate in accordance with the Constitution.
According to Article 365, the President may declare a “Constitutional Emergency” if a State disregards any Union directives under the constitution. The proclamation must be presented to both Houses of Parliament, and it expires after two months unless both Houses approve it with a “simple majority.” Once authorized, it lasts for six months from the proclamation date; extra parliamentary permission is needed for any six-month renewals.
Only in the event that an emergency has been proclaimed nationwide or in any state, and if the Election Commission certifies that the President’s order is required because of challenges in holding state elections, is a renewal longer than a year permitted.
The declaration of a national emergency is governed by Article 352, which has been used three times: in the 1962 India-China War, the 1971-armed conflict with Pakistan, and in 1975, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did so after being found guilty of electoral malpractices by the Allahabad High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh versus Raj Narain (1975) and barred from holding any elected office.
The 44th CAA, 1978, substituted “armed rebellion” for “internal disturbance” and added several measures to prevent abuse. reduced the parliamentary approval period from two months to one month and required a written recommendation from the Cabinet.
The President must retract the proclamation if the Lok Sabha adopts a resolution against it, and Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. Judicial review of the President’s pleasure in announcing the 38th CAA, 1975, was reinstated by the amendment.
A national emergency has no temporal limit, in contrast to a constitutional emergency. Parliament must approve the president’s rule with a simple majority; in the event of a national emergency, a special majority is required. While the state administration is fired and the legislature is suspended or dissolved under presidential rule, both branches of government continue to operate during a national emergency.
In contrast to a national emergency, where Article 358 renders Article 19 freedoms ineffective and permits the President to suspend all other fundamental rights—aside from Articles 20 and 21—the President’s rule has no effect on citizens’ fundamental rights.
In addition to granting the President the right to approve expenditures from the State’s Consolidated Fund, Article 357 permits Parliament to provide the President legislative authority and authorize delegation to another authority.
Despite Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s wish that it would remain a “dead letter,” President’s rule has been used almost 134 times in 29 states and union territories since the Constitution went into effect in 1950, demonstrating its twin function as a tool for crisis management and a divisive political measure.
These powers were redefined by the 1994 ruling in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India. The Supreme Court noted that “the constitution of India has created a federation but with a bias in favour of the Center, but that does not mean that States are mere appendages of the Center,” citing the Sarkaria Commission’s suggestion that Article 356 be utilized only as a last resort.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s authority under Article 356 is conditional rather than absolute, that any proclamation is subject to judicial review, that the Court and HCs have the authority to overturn it if it is determined to be malafide or based on extraneous or irrelevant grounds, that the President cannot dissolve the assembly without the consent of Parliament, and that the Center must first send a warning notice to the State in question, requesting an explanation.
Model Question:
Discuss the constitutional provisions related to the imposition of President’s Rule in a state. Critically analyze its impact on federalism in India. (250 words)
Model Answer
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides for the imposition of President’s Rule in a state if the President, on the report of the Governor or otherwise, is satisfied that the governance of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This provision is often criticized for its potential misuse and impact on federalism.
Constitutional Provisions
Grounds for Imposition: If the constitutional machinery in a state breaks down or if the state government fails to comply with the directives of the Union.
Procedure:
The President can assume all or any functions of the state government and legislature.
The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months.
It remains valid for six months and can be extended up to three years with periodic parliamentary approval.
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court, in the S.R. Bommai case (1994), ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, ensuring that it is not misused for political purposes.
Impact on Federalism
Positive Aspects:
- Ensures stability in case of breakdown of governance.
- Prevents unconstitutional practices in states.
Negative Aspects:
- Misuse for Political Gains: Historically, it has been used by the ruling party at the Centre to dismiss opposition-led state governments.
- Weakening of Federalism: Goes against the spirit of cooperative federalism and undermines state autonomy.
While President’s Rule is a necessary provision to maintain constitutional order, it should be exercised with caution. Judicial scrutiny and recommendations like those in the Punchhi Commission report advocate for stricter guidelines to prevent its misuse and uphold federal principles.
