President’s Rule in Uttarakhand: Modi govt is veering towards unitary form of govt, say jurists

[related-post]

“The Governor’s report is a crucial document in the case. If the report is not swayed by extraneous considerations and makes a cogent case of the failure of constitutional machinery in the state, then President’s Rule is not only justified, but imperative,” former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee told The Indian Expresss.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said: “President’s Rule is an emergency power. It is not to be used for political advantage. After the Bommai judgement, Article 356 had been put to severe restraint. The recent developments undo that restraint.”

He countered Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s contention that there was a “complete breakdown of the Constitution in Uttarakhand”, and said that “you cannot impose President’s Rule on the basis of rebellion of MLAs or defection”.

“This is a total abuse of Article 356, the kind Mrs (Indira) Gandhi did. Mr Jaitley has always opposed President’s Rule on such grounds when he was in the Opposition. The BJP wants to conquer all the states by fair or unfair means. This is an instance of employing unfair means.”

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde concurred and said that “they (the NDA government) are doing what used to happen before the Bommai case.”

Commenting on the impact of these decisions on Centre-state relations, Hegde said “the Indian Constitution is supposed to be quasi-federal. Now it becomes a unitary Constitution or unitary way of performing actions.”

“Since there is a strong majority government at the Centre, we may well see more such cases, but that would be bad for federalism,” he said.