Introduction
The invocation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, allowing the Union government to assume control of a state’s governance in cases of a “failure of constitutional machinery,” has historically been a matter of concern and controversy.
Body:
Legal factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 since the mid-90s:
- SR Bommai Case: The Supreme Court’s judgment in the SR Bommai case subjected the decision to impose the President’s rule to judicial review and emphasized the importance of the floor of the house as the appropriate platform for deciding the majority.
- It shifted the burden of responsibility to the Centre to provide material evidence justifying the President’s rule.
- Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court’s interpretation that the power under Article 356 is an emergency power, not an absolute one, has limited the arbitrariness in the imposition of President’s rule.
- Judicial activism: Increased judicial activism and the judiciary’s recognition of federalism as a basic structure of the Constitution have restrained the central government from misusing Article 356.
- Inter-State Councils and Sarkaria Commission: The formation of Inter-State Councils has led to enhanced cooperation between Union and State governments.
- The subsequent implementation of the Sarkaria Commission Report during Inter-State Council meetings has contributed to a decrease in the use of Article 356.
Political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 since the mid-90s:
- The active role of the President: Instances like former President K.R. Narayanan returning the cabinet’s recommendation in 1997 to impose President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh reflect the active role of the President as a constitutional safeguard.
- Presence of coalition governments: In the 1990s, a fragmented central government comprising both national and regional parties significantly influenced decision-making and served as a restraint against frequent Article 356 usage.
- For example, in 1998, regional allies like the Telugu Desam Party and Shiromani Akali Dal played crucial roles in preventing the dismissal of state governments in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
- Search for regional allies: The volatility of Indian politics has pushed national parties to ally with regional counterparts. This dynamic has made them cautious about frequent Article 356 usage, fearing strained relations with potential coalition partners.
- Constitutionalism by Governors: Instances like former Governor of Tamil Nadu, Surjeet Singh Barnala, refusing to send a report recommending the President’s rule in the state reflects the spirit of constitutionalism among constitutional authorities.
- Increased political awareness: Growing political awareness among citizens has made the misuse of Article 356 politically costly, with electoral repercussions for those responsible.
Conclusion
Decreased usage of Article 356 by Union Governments since the mid-1990s signifies the evolving nature of Indian governance and a steadfast dedication to upholding democratic values and federal harmony. This shift demonstrates the resilience of Indian democracy and its ability to self-correct.
