India as Republic, the discretion power of the President otherwise the President’s rule is in proper employed within the conjuncture of certain provisions recognized by the paramount constitution as enshrined in section 93. The provisions of emergencies are crucially discussed in the part xviii of the Indian constitution. These provisions are classified in three categories (a)(b) and (c) and the provision pertaining article 356 is adopted from the part xviii b of the Indian constitution wherein the president can with his discretion imposed 356 in case of “failure of state constitutional machinery”. The phrase “failure of state constitutional machinery” defines the event where the state can no longer function as per the obligation lain down by the constitution. The imposition of 356 can be simply understood following the proclamation tabled by the state governor after obtaining the consent of the president. It is now understood that the president has learned the dire currency of the state legislature failing to elect a leader as chief minister due to the breakdown of coalition, and election postponed for unavoidable circumstances.
The government of India act 1935 inasmuch regarded as the brainchild of emergency was enacted during the pre-independent India having Sir Samuel Hoarse as the then Secretary of State for India on 2 august 1935. Under this act the governor of state is the pivot agent of the Centre to the state who is in fact the executive head of that predefined state. This act equipped the British to take control of provinces and states at any desired time without entertaining the interest of the state by mastering the art of emergency.
356 in Arunachal Pradesh:
India on the 26th of January, 2016, not only witnessed the marvel of 67th republic day but also witnessed a gigantic shift of power in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the home state of Kiren Rijiju, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs of India, when the President of India Pranab Mukherjee imposed Art 356. And now the sole argument to why imposed 356 in Arunachal Pradesh lies in the fact that Chief Minister NabamTuki loss majority after 21 congress MLA’s revolted against him and joined hands with the 11 BJPMLA’s and 2 independent to form new government leaving the ruling party a minority in the state assembly. However, the immediate effect is the failure to convene the Assembly within the period of six months’ time. This in fact has amounted to the phrase ‘failure of state constitutional machinery’ (article 174) and thus under the supplicant knowledge of the union, president rule was deemed justified in the prevailing state of Arunachal Pradesh.
While the congress at the Centre strongly condemn the proclamation of the Act, terming it ‘misuse of 356’ or ‘political vendetta’, the Supreme Court bench headed by justice J.S. Khehar admit its slip-up on issuing notice to Governor J.P. Rajkhowa questioning the recommendation of President’s rule notwithstanding article 361(1) of the constitution. This article guaranteed the president and governor ‘complete immunity’ from the judiciary and are ‘not answerable to any court of law’ and protection from legal action.
More or less, the much daring ‘art 356’ is an administrative vehicle manifested by the spirit of republic de jure to exercise in events where a state has vehemently failed to function as a city state as prescribed by the constitution of India. In other tongue, the model comprehension of art 356 is simply referred to President’s rule. This absolute power of the executive is ushered when any of the state within the union of India has miserably failed to retain its normalcy due to the fall of coalition government or the loss of majority in the Vidhan Sabha (state assembly). Under this provision, the administrative structure of the state government is directly govern by the central having executives as the supreme agent, Governor. However, after a critical analysis on the relaxation of the President’s rule the Supreme Court of India put a restraining corner on the arbitrary character of the 356. The order of the Supreme Court to restrain the misuse of this sensitive act was uprooted from S.R. Bommai versus Union of India Case in 1994 and therefore remains inactive until the recent imposition in Arunachal Pradesh.
Ningreikhan Wungkhai,
New Delhi
