Context
The recent violence in Manipur has reignited debate on Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions.
About Federal set-up in India
- India is a federation with governments at the Centre and the States.
- The 7th Schedule to the Indian Constitution distributes the power between the Union and States.
- Under this scheme, it’s the area of the State governments to hold law and order of their respective States.
Emergency Provisions within the Constitution
- The emergency provisions are furnished in Part XVIII of the Constitution.
- Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of presidency in a State under this element.
- Article 355 imposes a responsibility on the Centre to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance.
- It also specifies that the Centre should ensure that every State government operates as per the Constitution.
- Article 356 allows for the imposition of the President’s rule if a State’s government cannot feature according to constitutional provisions.
- Comparison with Other Countries: In the U.S. And Australia, federal features additionally encompass defensive states, however they do not have provisions for removing state governments.
B.R. Ambedkar’s View
- B.R. Ambedkar explained that Article 355 was designed to ensure that any interference by the Centre in a State’s management under Article 356 is justified and constitutionally mandated.
- It serves to prevent arbitrary or unauthorized use of Article 356, retaining a take a look at federal power and keeping the federal structure of the polity.
Issues and Concerns
- It was hoped that Articles 355 and 356 could by no means be called into operation and might remain a lifeless letter
- However, Article 356 was misused several times to dismiss elected state governments with majorities, often for reasons ranging from electoral losses to issues with law and order, undermining constitutional principles and federalism.
Judicial Rulings
- The Supreme Court’s S.R. Bommai case (1994) constrained misuse of Article 356
- it ought to most effectively be used for constitutional breakdowns, not ordinary law and order problems. The imposition is concerned with judicial evaluation.
- The scope of Article 355 has improved over the years through various Supreme Court rulings.
- Initially, in State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India (1977), Article 355 was narrowly interpreted as justifying the use of Article 356.
- However, in later cases like Naga People’s Movement (1998), Sarbananda Sonowal (2005), and H.S. Jain (1997), the Supreme Court broadened the translation of Article 355, allowing the Union to take all vital statutory and constitutional actions to protect states and make certain they adhere to constitutional governance.
Recommendations by Commissions
- The Sarkaria Commission (1987), the National Commission (2002), and the Punchhi Commission (2010) have all said that
- Article 355 requires the Union to protect states and allows it to take important moves to satisfy this obligation.
- They have also emphasized that Article 356, which imposes President’s rule, ought to be used only as a last resort in extreme and urgent situations.
Conclusion
- The emergency provisions are critical for maintaining constitutional order, their effect on Centre-State relations is significant and complex.
- They necessitate a sensitive stability between central government and state autonomy, and their software must be guided by standards of equity, necessity, and constitutional integrity.
- As India keeps adapting, ensuring that these provisions are used judiciously and in the framework of federal standards can be key to keeping the democratic and federal material of the state.
Source: The Hindu