Bench:
1. Kuldeep Singh
2. B.Sawant
3. Katikithala Ramaswamy
4. C.Agarwal
5. Yogeshwar Dayal
6. P.Jeevan Reddy
7. R.Pandian
8. M.Ahmadi
9. S.Verma
Backgound:
Article 356 deals with imposition of President’s Rule over a State of India. When a state is under President’s Rule, the elected state government (led by the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers) is suspended, and administration is conducted directly by the Governor of the state. The Governor is an appointee of the President and thus, effectively, a functionary of the Union Government (the central or federal government). Thus imposition of President’s Rule negates the federal character of the Indian political system, where administration usually is shared between the Union and State governments. It also militates against the democratic doctrine of popular sovereignty, since an elected government is suspended. These reasons have made use of Article 356 controversial. Nevertheless, it was used repeatedly by central governments to suspend state governments (of opposite political parties) based on genuine reasons or trumped-up excuses.
Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, referred to Article 356 as a dead letter of the Constitution. In the constituent assembly debate it was suggested that Article 356 is liable to be abused for political gains. Dr. Ambedkar replied, “I share the sentiments that such articles will never be called into operation and 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 precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces. I hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution. If that warning fails, the second thing for him to do will be to order an election allowing the people of the province to settle matters by themselves. It is only when these two remedies fail that he would resort to this article.”
But this was never the case and before the judgement in Bommai case, Article 356 has been repeatedly abused to dismiss the State Governments controlled by a political party opposed to ruling party at centre. Provision for suspension of elected governments has been used on more than 90 occasions and in most of the cases, it appeared to be of doubtful constitutional validity, as mentioned by B. P. Jeevan Reddy during one of his interviews in 1998.
Introduction:
This case relates to State emergency u/art 356. State emergency is incomplete without this case being discussed. The major part of this case is about the Centre State relation.
Facts of the case:
1. The situation in Karnataka in 1989 April was clogged and led to state emergency u/art 356(1). This proclamation was thereafter confirmed by the Parliament.
2. The situation which led to state emergency was that S.R.Bommai a personal of Janta Party formed the government in 1988, but subsequently joined the Lok Dal forming a collision government as Janta Dal.
3. But soon there were bifurcations amongst the party members leading to fall of the Government.
4. Therefore the President had to proclaim emergency.
5. This proclamation was challenged through Writ Petition but the High Court dismissed the Petition. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether President Proclamation u/art 356 is justified?
2. Whether the President has unrestricted power to proclaim emergency?
3. Whether the proclamation can be challenged even after approved by both the houses of Parliament?
Judgement:
The Proclamation of emergency u/art 356 is subject to Judicial Review. The relevancy and the need of such proclamation shall be struck down by the concerned court if found malafide.
1. The Power of President under 356 is subject to restrictions. The opinion is formed is based on the report of the Governor and not sole satisfaction.
2. The Supreme Court can struck down the proclamation even if both the houses of Parliament passes the same on Malafide grounds.
BY: PALAK GOEL
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS