Judicial Scrutiny of President’s Rule: Balancing Powers and Safeguarding Democracy

Context: A Constitutional Bench set for hearing petition related to the abrogation of Art 370 recently held that a President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution must be reasonable.

Judicial Review of President’s Rule: Unpacking the Parameters and Prerequisites

• Petition challenging President’s Rule: The statement is in response to a petition filed against the President’s Rule imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.
• Presidential Rule Open to Judicial Scrutiny: The court held that it can judicial review the exercise of power and assess whether Parliament’s use of Article 356 has a reasonable connection with the objective intended by the Proclamation.
• Not Every Action Prone to Judicial Scrutiny: However, the court emphasized that the President’s rule of power for the “everyday administration of the State” is generally not subject to routine judicial review. 
• Criteria for evaluating the Actions of Parliament/President:  The court held that is the responsibility of the individual challenging the President’s rule actions during an emergency to prove  that they had a mala fide intent.
• Responsibility of Centre to Provide Justification: The Bench held that if a case was established, the responsibility would shift to the Centre to justify the exercise of power.
• S R Bommai Case: The Supreme Court relied on the S R Bommai ruling to hold that the actions of the President are constitutionally valid.

Article 356: Presidential Rule in India – Addressing Constitutional Machinery Failures

• Failure of Constitutional Machinery: It authorizes the President to declare President’s Rule in a State on the receipt of a report from the Governor about the failure of the Constitutional Machinery in that state.
• Legislative Powers to Parliament: Under this,  the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament.

Ground for Imposition of President’s Rule: It has been seen that President’s Rule is Imposed in the following circumstances.

• Legislative Stalemate (Hung Assembly): The state legislature is not able to elect a leader as the Chief Minister(CM) for a time prescribed by the state’s governor.
• Collapse of Coalition Government: Breakdown of a coalition in the state government, that leads to the CM having minority support in the legislature, and the CM is unable to prove his majority within the time prescribed by the governor.
• No-Confidence Motion: A no-confidence vote in the legislative assembly leading to a loss of majority.
• Election Delays: Postponement of elections owing to unavoidable reasons such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or war.

President’s Rule in India: Parliamentary Approval, Duration, and Safeguards

• Parliamentary approval: Both houses of Parliament must approve a proclamation imposing the President’s Rule within two months.
• Initial duration: If approved, the President’s Rule lasts for six months.
• Extension: Maximum duration: Three years.
  • Beyond one year: Requires meeting specific conditions:
    • National Emergency in operation in all or part of the state.
    • The Election Commission certifies general elections cannot be held due to difficulties.
• Revocation: The President can revoke the President’s Rule without parliamentary approval.
• Approval for the President’s Rule and its extension require only a simple majority in either house of Parliament.
• The 44th Amendment Act limited the Parliament’s power to extend the President’s Rule beyond one year, introducing stricter conditions for longer durations.
• These provisions balance the central government’s power to impose the President’s Rule with safeguards against its misuse and ensure timely elections.

Concerns and Controversies: Examining Political Misuse and Judicial Overreach in President’s Rule

• Political Misuse: There are occasions when the President’s Rule was imposed solely for political purposes to overthrow the government formed by a party other than that of the central government.
  • Janata Party employed Article 356 to dismiss nearly all state governments led by Congress parties.
• Dissolution of State Assemblies: Assemblies have been dissolved or suspended and other political parties have not been given the chance to form state governments.
  • The Assemblies of up to nine states governed by non-Congress (I) parties were dissolved when Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980.
• Judicial Overreach on Art 356: The Andhra Pradesh High Court exercised suo moto jurisdiction in 2020 to investigate the Andhra Pradesh government’s breakdown of constitutional machinery. 
  • The Supreme Court noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had made an arbitrary and overreaching case. 
• Partisan Role Played by Governors: In recent times, Governors in several states have been involved in the day-to-day administration, a function typically under the purview of elected governments. 
• Governors are playing a role in either establishing or dissolving state governments. 
• Ex-In 2016, the interference of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh led to the Speaker’s removal and a change in state government.

Reforming the President’s Rule: Strengthening Safeguards and Roles for Effective Federal Governance

• Role of Governor: The governor must act prudently, impartially, and effectively to maintain the spirit of federalism and ensure the smooth operation of democratic governance.
  • In this regard, the recommendation of Sarkaria Commissions to clearly lay down the procedure for appointment of governors and providing surety of tenure needs to be followed.
• Role of President: The President may use its suspensive veto power in case article 356 is maliciously used.
  • Ex- Former president K.R. Narayanan returned the cabinet’s recommendation regarding the Kalyan Singh government in Uttar Pradesh stating that imposing President’s Rule would be unconstitutional.
• Safeguards against Misuse: The necessary provisions for safeguards against arbitrary action of the ruling party at the Centre under Article 356 should be incorporated in the Constitution. 
  • The other alternative is to provide safeguards to secure the interests of the States against the arbitrary and unilateral action of a party commanding majority, which happens to be in power at the Centre.
• Role of Inter-State Council: It should be endowed with the advisory function of discussing proclamation of President’s Rule and the measures taken by the President in pursuance of such a proclamation. 
  • The InterState Council could have a permanent Standing Committee, which could constantly monitor the issue relating to imposition of President’s Rule.
• Security to State Government: The Ministry of the State concerned should not depend on the pleasure of the Governor and the Ministry should continue its function till it commands a majority in the State Legislative Assembly. 
  • Before recommending the President’s Rule in the State, the Governor should ensure a Ministry which would enjoy the confidence of the Legislature after observing all the possibilities. 
• Ensuring Legislative Confidence: Before enforcing the President’s rule in the state, the center must issue a warning to the state and provide it a week to reply.
• Other Measures: The presence of a healthy and strong Opposition, vigilant public opinion, good statesmanship and respect for principles of federalism are also effective checks upon the misuse of this power.

Conclusion: 

• The misuse of Article 356 can’t be ignored as it has direct implications on the federal structure of the country thereby violating the basic structure of the Constitution. The need of the hour is to amend Article 356 and provide a specific definition of phrases ‘otherwise’ and ‘failure of Constitutional machinery’ so that scope of Article 356 can be fixed.

News Source: The Hindu