Ministry rejects panel’s recommendation on Art 356

It has been argued that ‘‘incoporation of the amendment as proposed in Article 356 may create practical difficulties in future.’’ The ministry has argued that the judgement in the Bommai case would be adequate for providing safeguards against possible misuse of Article 356.

Another argument was that incorporating safeguards as provided in the S.R. Bommai case could create ‘‘political uncertanity’’ if President’s Rule is imposed in a state ‘‘when the House of the People is dissolved’’. Also, if the ammendements proposed by the commission is carried out, ‘‘it would not be possible to deal with situations like those which prevailed in Uttar Pradesh in 1995 and Goa in 1999’’.

Changes in the Constitution that would make the Governor’s report —— the basic document on the basis of which President’s rule is imposed —— a ‘‘speaking document containing a precise and clear statement of all material facts and grounds on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself,’’ has also been rejected by the Home Ministry. It has been argued by the ministry that no ammendment is required in the Constitution as the Governor’s report ‘‘normally indicates the grounds for’’ imposing President’s Rule. The ministry has, however, said that issue could be discussed in the Annual Conference of Governors and the President may also advise Governors.

The ministry has also rejected a proposal which allowed a show-cause notice to be issued to the state government before imposing President’s rule. The Ministry has argued that ‘‘issuance of a show-cause notice would lead to undesirable litigation and will frustrate the constitutional intent.’’