By Sushil Kumar Jain
The action of the governor of Karnataka to recommend the imposition of President’s rule in the state and the refusal of the Central government to accept the recommendation raises some fundamental questions about the role of the governor in the administration of the state and the relevance of Art 356 of the Constitution.
It is worth recalling the circumstances under which the provision relating to bringing a state under President’s rule was included in the Constitution. Art 356 was derived from Sec 93 of the government of India Act,1935, according to which the governor of a province, if satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could by proclamation assume any or all the powers vested in a provincial authority including the ministry and the legislature. Obviously, the colonial powers did not trust the ministries formed by Indian political parties and elected legislatures and therefore did not hesitate to resume their powers whenever the occasion demanded.
Soon after Independence, one of the biggest challenges was the consolidation of hundreds of states in the Indian Union which was accomplished with great skill, thanks to Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Hence, the problems that the new Republic would face, especially in terms of security and political stability, was foremost in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Art 356 was therefore included after a great deal of deliberation although several members were opposed to it. It was felt that the guiding hand of the Centre would be useful to the states in view of their limited democratic experience. Even so, Ambedkar expressed the hope that “the President will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the province.”
The hope of Ambedkar was belied several times as the Central government resorted to Art 356 whenever it suited its convenience purely for political reasons, even when the state governments enjoyed majority in the legislative Assembly. It was only after the Supreme Court ruled in the S R Bommai case that the state governments cannot be dismissed when they enjoyed a majority and the right place for testing it was on the floor of the Assembly, there is some application of mind by the Centre before imposing President’s rule.
In the case of Karnataka, the governor without examining the prevailing political situation, was in a great hurry to recommend imposition of President’s rule casting to the wind the clear-cut observation of the Supreme Court: “The power conferred by Art 356 is a conditional power, it is not an absolute power to be exercised in the discretion of the President.” Fortunately, better wisdom prevailed in the Central cabinet and it decided not to heed the governor’s recommendation. What was, however, strange was the
doggedness with which the state Congress party leadership pursued the case and entertained hopes of President’s rule being imposed in the state.
The question is whether we need Art 356 six decades after functioning as a democratic republic. Circumstances that prevailed in the initial years after independence no longer exist. Three factors stand out. First, India is now a stable democracy as is evident from the successful conduct of elections from time to time. Secondly, the emergence of regional parties has ensured that national parties cannot be certain of ruling in states all the time or on their own. Thirdly, the emergence of regional leaders even within national parties, as in Karnataka, shows that the central leadership of national parties cannot ignore them and impose their will on the states. The Congress for obvious reasons has not recognised this.
It is clear that states have now evolved into strong entities and are capable of governing themselves politically. This is not to say there will always be good governance. For that matter, one can point out instances of bad governance in the central government too. It is not just the state institutions but the Central institutions that have failed in many respects. We need to develop proper safeguards against misuse of state power and that is a process that must go on continuously.
Time has come to do away with Art 356 of the Constitution. If there is a constitutional breakdown in a state, the remedy lies in going to the people and seeking a fresh mandate and not in the Centre assuming the powers of the state authorities. This will also make the legislators, particularly the defectors more responsible. After all, when there is a national emergency, the President does not assume the powers of the central government or parliament. There is no need to apply a different norm at the state level. This would also necessitate a review of the role of the governor.
Ambedkar himself affirmed that the states are supreme, ‘sovereign’ in the field allotted to them and in our system no single entity can claim superiority. Ours is a federation and as pointed out by several constitutional scholars, it is only the spirit of ‘cooperative federalism’ that can preserve the balance between the Centre and the states. INAV