President emerges as important buffer

A lot of water has flown down the Yamuna during the 108 instances in which Article 356 has been so far. Most were after the ’70s, largely an Indira Gandhi phenomenon, though it was the Janata Party government which sacked nine state governments on the grounds that they had lost the mandate simply because the Congress lost power at the Centre in 1977.

The change in perception of Art. 356 has coincided with the rise of regional parties in the states whichhave been at the receiving end of the Centre’s stick in the past: DMK In Tamil Nadu, NT Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh and the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir. And an increasingly active judiciary and an assertive presidency.

The President in his communique made a distinction between the breakdown of the Constitution and bad governance. It’s like saying that the patient does not suffer from this ailment though he may well be afflicted by another more serious disease.

The President’s decision has largely been governed by the landmark Bommai judgement which laid down ground rules for the application of Article 356. Narayanan also reportedly relied on the applicability of the Article as defined in law and the Constitution, the Sarkaria Commission’s report and interpretations in major cases. He consulted four constitutional experts: the present Attorney General Soli Sorbajee, two former Attorneys General Ashok Desai and K Parasaran, and Fali Nariman.

The question of whether to dismiss Bihargovernment or not has thrown up important questions for the future. There is the need to build safeguards relating to Article 356 into the Constitution. This was the consensus which emerged in June 1997 at the meeting of the chief ministers who were members of the standing committee of the Inter State Council.

The Chief Ministers had made a case for a warning by the President to the state government before imposing Central rule; exploring the possibility of the President assuming some of the functions of the state government without removing it; ensuring that the Assembly is not dissolved until the proclamation is approved by Parliament.

They had also suggested the deletion of that provision of the Article which legitimised the declaration of President’s rule even without the Governor’s report.

It was making use of this provision that Chandra Shekhar had dismissed Karunanidhi’s ministry in Tamil Nadu after Governor S S Barnala had refused to go along with the decision.

Many chief ministers(Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab) had made a case for abrogating Article 356 but others, including West Bengal CM Jyoti Basu, felt it should be used as measure of last resort.

Ultimately, the credibility of President’s rule is linked to the credibility of the man who recommends itthe Governor. It is here that the most urgent reforms are needed and the modalities of appointing Governors has to be reviewed. This was also a recommendation of the chief ministers last year.