Journalism of Courage
Advertisement
Premium

The wheels move

It is interesting how perspectives change. Political parties which suffered the heavy hand of the Central Government and found little or no...

.

It is interesting how perspectives change. Political parties which suffered the heavy hand of the Central Government and found little or no virtue in Article 356 are now in the hot seat themselves. What is more, they find themselves accused of misusing the Centre8217;s power to dismiss State governments as in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. The experience of being on both sides of the fence, so to speak, has been sobering and useful. It has resulted in a sound set of proposals on the use and prevention of misuse of a provision invoked 105 times since the Constitution came into force.

The unanimous view of the standing committee of the Inter-State Council is Article 356 should remain in the book. At the same time, a number of measures have been recommended in order to regulate use of the Article, eliminate arbitrariness and lend transparency to the Centre8217;s decisions.With the chief ministers of States ruled by the Telugu Desam, Congress, CPIM, Asom Gana Parishad and BJP, as well as the Home Minister and other Union Ministers endorsing these views, the unusual phenomenon of an all-party consensus has occurred. This is welcome.

Ten years after the Sarkaria Commission8217;s labours, the wheels are moving and the chances are a Constitutional amendment will be passed, as planned, early in the next session of the Lok Sabha. Two sets of key amendments place major restraints on the Central Government. A Presidential proclamation under Article 356 is to be ratified within a month by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting in Parliament. Except in the rare situation when one party has a brute majority as the Congress did after the 1984 election, the imposition of President8217;s rule will have to be justified on more credible grounds than the catch-all, disputable phrase, a 8220;breakdown of the machinery of government8221;. Other measures reinforce the first. A State government must get the opportunity to defend itself and possibly take remedial action by being given a 8220;show cause8221; notice and a week to reply to it before it can be dismissed.

Above all, the Presidential proclamation must cite specific grounds and arguments for removing a government. This is crucial. Central action must be seen by the public at large to be necessary. Most importantly, detailed reasoning will provide a secure basis for judicial scrutiny and remove scope for the confusing and contradictory rulings of the past which have made Article 356 something of jurist8217;s nightmare.

In one respect, the standing committee goes too far in trying to curb executive powers. It would like Parliament alone and not Governors to decide if an Assembly should be dissolved. The underlying concerns here are understandable in the light of the propensity of Governors to function as agents of the ruling party at the Centre rather than as the Constitutional functionaries they are required to be. But it is difficult to see MPs, at their distance from the scene of action and with their own political involvements, displaying the wisdom of Solomon. Clear guidelines for Governors would be more useful and less disruptive of the Constitutional scheme.

Curated For You

 

Tags:
Weather
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Tavleen Singh writesThe real reason most Indian cities are among worst governed global cities
X