According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Federal Government” can be defined as the system of government administered in a state formed by the Union or Confederation of several independent or quasi independent states; also composite states so formed.
Indian Constitution envisages India as a “Federal State”, where the power is distributed among the Central Government and the Government of different states. But, sometimes this feature of the Indian Constitution is questioned, not because of any other reason but because of one of the provisions enshrined under this constitution. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution states that President can proclaim emergency in a state if on receipt of a report from the Governor, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. But, the scope as to what should be the scope of the phrase “cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” is very wide and debatable. There have been many instances since independence when an emergency has been proclaimed in a state for some political motivated reason, and for a long period of time courts have kept this provision out of their purview. The situation with regard to this provision has got even worse after the recommendation of Karnataka’s Government H.R. Bharadwaj for imposing President’s Rule in the state. The recommendation of the Governor came following the trust vote session in the state assembly last year. It had been reported by the Governor that the floor test took place in an unconstitutional manner and the whole process was chaotic. It would be very interesting to notice that BJP government was able to win the trust vote for saving its government in the state. The speaker disqualified 16 MLAs who withdrew their support from BJP government following a cabinet reshuffle, but the disqualification was termed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and quashed speaker’s decision. Coming again to the main point which is ought to be resolved or discussed i.e. whether the recommendation of the Governor would provide a valid reason to the President for invoking Article 356 of the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the scope of this article is very wide which makes the proclamation controversial quite often.
This provision was invoked for the very first time in the year 1951, when the then Prime Minister of India, J.L. Nehru, asked the then C.M. of the Punjab for dissolving the assembly. The then President of India, Rajendra Prasad was not happy with this decision of Nehru, it was imposed. When no party enjoys the majority in the state assembly, then it is becomes inevitable not to proclaim this provision of the Indian Constitution. But, the case of the Karnataka which we are talking about was enjoying majority at the time when the recommendation was made by the Government. Proclamation of this provision becomes controversial when a party enjoying majority is dismissed on the account of certain reasons. It happened for the first time in the state of Kerela in the year 1959 when a Communist Government was dismissed by the Central Government, or Congress government to be more specific. Law and order situation was not good in the state at that point of time, and it became necessary according to the Central Government to invoke this provision. This provision is invoked by the President in his own discretion after becoming satisfied with the reasons for the proclamation, but it was held by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India that “President exercises his power under Art. 356(1) on the advice of the Council of Ministers to which, in effect, the power really belongs though it may be formally vested with the President.” This means President merely acts on the advice provided to him by the Council of Ministers while invoking this provision which sometimes become controversial. There are certain situations which can be termed as “breakdown of the constitutional machinery of a state” and few of them are as follows.
1. No Party in the Assembly has a majority in the State Legislative Assembly.
2. A government in office loses its majority due to defection and no alternative government can be formed.
3. A Government may have majority support in the House, but it may function in a manner subversive of the Constitution.
4. The state government doesn’t comply with the directions issued by the Central Government under various constitutional provisions.
The situation of the Karnataka might come under the third situation as mentioned above. But again, it would be very controversial to term the manner in which trust vote took place as unconstitutional.
There have been various instances when various state governments get dissolved because of some political reasons. The most important event in this regard is the dismissal of 9 Congress ruled states by Janta Party, when it came into power in the year 1977. The same incident again took place in the year 1980, when Congress Party again secured majority in the Lok Sabha. It proclaimed emergency in 9 states ruled by non-Congress parties. The reason given by the then Prime Minister of India was that governments in these states no longer attain faith of the electorate. These incidents have been highly criticized by various legal scholars. Soon after these incidents, Sarkaria Commission came with a report stating that “These 18 cases are typical instances of wholesome misuse of Art. 356 for political purposes, extraneous to the one for which the power has been conferred by the Constitution” Also, it was reported by the commission that this provision of the Indian Constitution should be used very carefully, and only when no other resort is available to apart from the proclamation of President’s Rule. Indian courts i.e. the Supreme Court and High Courts have kept themselves away from these kinds of matters for a long period of time. The interference of the court on President’s discretion while proclamation of this provision was curbed by 38th Amendment Act, 1975 which added a clarification clause which made Presidential satisfaction “Final and Conclusive” not to be questioned in any court on any ground. In Bijayanand v. President of India AIR 1974 Ori 52, it was held by the court that “The satisfaction of the President under Art. 356 and the basis thereof are subjective and are not subject to objective tests by judicial review. The question involves high executive and administrative policy and court will find out no standard for resolving it judicially”. The same view was expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Sreeramulu vs Unknown AIR 1974 AP 106 where it was held by the court that “There are no satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination of what are relevant considerations and this makes the question of satisfaction an intrinsically a political one beyond the reach of the court”. But, one aberrant point which has to be seen while talking about this matter is that the clarification clause which was added by the 38th Amendment Act, 1975 as discussed earlier was withdrawn by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978. The view of the court not to interfere in this matter was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 1361:(1977) SCC 592, where it was held by the court that it could not interfere with the Centre’s exercise of power under Art. 356 merely on the ground that it embraced “political and executive policy and expediency unless some constitutional provision was being infringed”
But, there came a turning point in the history of India when Supreme Court interfered in the matter pertaining to the President’s Rule in the state of Karnataka. The case was S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 :( 1994) 3 SCC 1, and is one of the most important judgment in Indian Legal History. At that point of time, President’s rule was imposed in 5 states other than Karnataka, and three out of these 5 states were BJP ruled. Central Government imposed President’s Rule in these BJP ruled states on the ground for maintaining law and order after the demolition of Babari Mosque by BJP supporters. The imposition of President’s rule was held invalid by the court in this judgment which includes Karnataka along with two other states. Proclamation was held valid in the states which were ruled by BJP at that point of time. Justice Jeevan Reddy opined that “Art. 356 confer upon the President conditioned power. It is not an absolute power. The existence of material which may comprise of or include the report of the Governor is a pre-condition. The President’s satisfaction must be formed on relevant material.” Once, it was commented by Justice Bhagwati that if the satisfaction of the President is mala fide or is based on some irrelevant grounds, then the interference of the court in the concerned matter would be justifiable because in such situations there doesn’t exist any subject matter which the satisfaction of the President is based on. And if there is no satisfaction, then there can be no proclamation of Art. 356 of the Indian Constitution.
The spirit of the Federal Structure of India has to be preserved and it should not be destroyed through some extraneous decisions. The take of Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs that there would be not proclamation of President’s rule in the state of Karnataka is appreciable. The grounds, on which the report of the Governor was based, did not seem to be appropriate for the proclamation of this section. P. Chidambaram said “the government was also "mindful" of a Supreme Court ruling on imposition of Article 356 to dismiss state governments, an apparent reference to the judgment in the SR Bommai case, which laid down strict criteria and safeguards for dismissal of a state government by the central government.” But, a warning has been given to the state government keeping in mind the report provided to the Centre by the Governor.
“The federal government is like a handicapped turtle trying to crawl around and keep up with the rabbit, which is technology.” - James Breithaupt
No comments :
Post a Comment