President’s rule: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
President’s rule in India
1976-1996
From: January 14, 2022: The Times of India
From: Jan 12, 2022: The Times of India
See graphics:
The longest and shortest single spell of President's rule, 1976-1996
No. of times President's Rule was imposed, state-wise
Supreme Court rulings
1959-2005
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Dec 2, 2019 The Times of India
The BJP-led Centre’s ridiculous midnight shenanigans through a pliant governor in BS Koshyari to prevent the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance from forming government in Maharashtra failed, thanks to CJI SA Bobde’s prompt action to list their petition and an expeditious direction for floor test by a Supreme Court bench led by Justice NV Ramana. A “murder of democracy” was prevented. It exposed the hollowness of BJP’s almost proprietorial claim over the political moral high ground.
Congress protested the loudest and rightly berated BJP for the mess. But it was a Congress government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru which misused the power under Article 356 of the Constitution to sow the “murder of democracy” seed in Kerala in 1959. The seed has grown into a thick weed, chocking the ethical exercise of Article 356.
The EMS Namboodiripad government in Kerala was guillotined in 1959 by the Centre at the behest of then governor B Ramakrishna Rao. Since then, it has been repeated umpteen times. The most sinister one happened on August 15, 1984. The Indira Gandhi government, through governor Ram Lal, dismissed the TDP government in Andhra Pradesh headed by NT Rama Rao, when he was away in the US for coronary bypass surgery.
On his return, Rao herded his MLAs and sent them to Bengaluru in luxury buses, a practice now adopted by many political parties. Then he went to the people’s court riding his ‘Chaitanya Ratham’. Public outcry forced the Centre to reinstate NTR.
The Janata Party government headed by SR Bommai was dismissed by Rajiv Gandhi on April 21, 1989, through governor Pendekanti Venkatasubbaiah, who rejected Bommai’s written request for test of strength in the assembly. He moved the SC and its judgment has become the touchstone for testing the validity of Centre’s actions, through governor, to ‘murder democracy’.
Prior to Bommai, the Centre’s might under Article 356 to ruthlessly dismiss non-Congress governments was taken as inevitable, attracting muffled criticism from political analysts, who in general leaned towards Congress’s hereditary right to be in government.
The Bommai judgment [1994(3) SCC 1] severely truncated gubernatorial discretion to recommend dismissal of state governments and lain down that ‘floor test’ was the sole mechanism to determine who enjoyed majority support. But the nine-judge ruling has not been able to curb the tendency of political parties in power to ‘murder democracy’. Two such brazen ‘murders’ took place in 2005 in Bihar and Jharkhand under the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh.
While arguing Maharashtra’s case, senior advocate and Congress leader AM
Singhvi said “democracy is a game of numbers”, a reiteration of the 25-year-old Bommai judgment. Yet, governments at the Centre continue to contemptuously disregard numbers and perpetrate ‘murder of democracy’.
Through a midnight operation in 2005, the Centre aided by governor Buta Singh dissolved the Bihar assembly to prevent the NDA, which was on the brink of cobbling a majority in a hung House, from staking claim to form government. The governor’s May 22, 2005, report recommending dissolution of assembly was accepted by the Union cabinet at 11 pm. Then President APJ Abdul Kalam was away in Moscow. The decision was faxed to him in Moscow at 1.52 am on May 23. The President’s approval was faxed back at 3.50 am. The SC had criticised the manoeuvres of the Centre and the governor and had declared imposition of President’s rule unconstitutional [Rameshwar Prasad case, 2006 (2) SCC 1].
The actions of Koshyari and the Modi government in Maharashtra mirror the dark deeds of the Manomohan Singh government and governor Buta Singh in Bihar in 2005. That year, Jharkhand governor Syed Sibtey Razi, on the Centre’s instructions, installed JMM leader Shibu Soren as CM despite the NDA claiming support of 41 MLAs in the 80-member House. SC followed the Bommai judgment and ordered floor test. Soren lost. NDA’s Arjun Munda became CM.
In all these and many more instances, governors have always adopted a ‘more loyal than the king’ approach despite a 40year-old SC judgment telling them to act independently [Hargovind Pant vs Dr Raghukul Tilak, 1979 (3) SCC 458]. “It is no doubt true that the governor is appointed by the President which means in effect and substance by the government of India, but that is only a mode of appointment and it does not make the governor an employee or servant of the government of India,” the SC had said.
A person’s political stripes seldom vanish. Governors, most of whom are politicians in the sunset of their careers but with unflinching loyalty towards the party in power, have never questioned the Centre’s instructions seeking recommendations for dismissal of state governments.
BR Ambedkar had reposed blind trust in constitutional morality of governors and presidents. A trust that made him brush aside Constituent Assembly members’ grave apprehensions about misuse of Article 356.
He had said, “Proper thing we ought to expect is that such Articles (like 356) will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with these powers, will take proper precaution before actually suspending administration of the province.” Ironically, Ambedkar had also said that a good constitution could turn bad and a bad constitution could turn good, depending on the character and morality of people entrusted with its implementation.
1977-2016
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.
