President’s rule: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Supreme Court rulings
The Times of India, Apr 22 2016
Dhananjay Mahapatra
Showing increasing intolerance towards Centre's use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments, the SC has clarified in several judgments that Central rule was no substitute to testing a democratically elected government's strength on the floor of the assembly .
In 1977, then Janata Party government asked CMs of nine Congressruled states to resign or face dismissal through Article 356. This was challenged in the SC, which took a lenient view of the political manoeuvring. It said judicial review of presidential proclamation was on a limited ground and couldn't touch political aspects.
But the judiciary started taking a stern view of Article 356's misuse after overturning the Centre dismissed S R Bommai in Karnataka and the Meghalaya government in 1989 and 1991. By the time the court took up the challenges to Central rule in Karnataka and Meghalaya, the Centre had dismissed the governments of UP , MP and Rajasthan in 1993 after the Babri masjid demolition.
All these cases were taken together and the Bommai case ruling of 1994 became the guiding light for constitutional courts. Here, the court said floor test was the best method to judge an elected government's majority . It said, “The SC or HC can strike down the proclamation if it is found mala fide or based on ir relevant or extraneous grounds. When called upon, the Union of India has to produce the material on the basis of which action was taken. It cannot refuse to do so, if it seeks to defend the action.“
The SC also said: “The court won't go into correctness of the material or its adequacy . Its enquiry is limited to see whether the material was relevant to the action. Even if part of the material is irrelevant, the court cannot interfere so long as there's some material relevant to the action taken.“ It struck down imposition of central rule in Karnataka and Meghalaya, but upheld it under Article 356 to dismiss UP, MP and Rajasthan governments saying a state couldn't profess any religion when secularism was the cardinal constitutional principle for governance. But lessons from reversal in constitutional courts have seldom deterred political one-upmanship. To prevent Nitish Kumar from coming to office in 2005, Central rule was imposed in Bihar. SC struck it down. Before the Uttarakhand HC decision, the Congress challenged Article 356's use to dismiss Nabam Tuki in Arunachal. SC's ruling in the case is awaited.
